I'm so sick of the rightwing denial of man made climate change

[jc456]

To the 97% lie we go....

"The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change.

Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make."

More debunking of lies and bullshit at link.

Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer The Myth of the Climate Change 97 - WSJ

It really wouldn't change the fact that the vast majority of peer reviewed studies from around the world all come to same conclusion now would it?

do you even know what peer review is? Let's see your definition of peer review. Did you know that peer review for climate science includes themselves? Didn't think you did.

 

[jc456]

To the 97% lie we go....

"The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change.

Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make."

More debunking of lies and bullshit at link.

Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer The Myth of the Climate Change 97 - WSJ

Your link has nothing to do with my link. Mine was a percentage of peer reviewed papers. Yours is on a survey of scientists themselves.

You can try using logic, but they'll just yell louder. However, your tenacity is impressive.

LOGIC, you wouldn't know what that word was if it hit you in the face.

 

[jc456]

To the 97% lie we go....

"The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change.

Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make."

More debunking of lies and bullshit at link.

Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer The Myth of the Climate Change 97 - WSJ

And I'm sure if 97% of 79 out of 3146 agreed climate change was happening and caused by man the other 3077 would have said "what no? Liberal bullshit" but please call them up and find out. Never mind that many of those not surveyed ALSO wrote papers on how climate change is real and man made.

why don't you know? Your side stating consensus. so why don't you already know that answer and show us those results.

 

[jc456]

To the 97% lie we go....

"The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change.

Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make."

More debunking of lies and bullshit at link.

Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer The Myth of the Climate Change 97 - WSJ

It really wouldn't change the fact that the vast majority of peer reviewed studies from around the world all come to same conclusion now would it?

Peer reviewed had become such a joke that the rules have to be changed.

For a great length of time scientists were allowed to choose who would be able to *cough* peer review their work and their findings.

And as if that wasn't bad enough, many scientists were actually able to *cough* peer review their own papers.

Publishing The peer-review scam Nature News Comment

EXACTLY

 

[jc456]

To the 97% lie we go....

"The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change.

Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make."

More debunking of lies and bullshit at link.

Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer The Myth of the Climate Change 97 - WSJ

It really wouldn't change the fact that the vast majority of peer reviewed studies from around the world all come to same conclusion now would it?

yea Billy and you believe a ship in 1870 the Great Britain challenger accurately measured ocean temperature to a 10th of a degree at a depth of 900 meters?

Bet you believe in the tooth fairy also(;.;'

Bear, shame on you, you might upset the apple cart stating something about the tooth fairy. It is a belief.

 

[jc456]

To the 97% lie we go....

"The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change.

Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make."

More debunking of lies and bullshit at link.

Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer The Myth of the Climate Change 97 - WSJ

It really wouldn't change the fact that the vast majority of peer reviewed studies from around the world all come to same conclusion now would it?

Peer reviewed had become such a joke that the rules have to be changed.

For a great length of time scientists were allowed to choose who would be able to *cough* peer review their work and their findings.

And as if that wasn't bad enough, many scientists were actually able to *cough* peer review their own papers.

Publishing The peer-review scam Nature News Comment

Lol did you even read this article? It cites 110 articles of authors fraudulently passing off their work as peer reviewed. It has nothing to do with the peer review process being inherently flawed.

again, perhaps you should look up what 'peer' review actually is. LOL the misinformation is hysterical. Keep up the liberal good fight of misrepresentation.

 

[jc456]

And I'm sure if 97% of 79 out of 3146 agreed climate change was happening and caused by man the other 3077 would have said "what no? Liberal bullshit" but please call them up and find out. Never mind that many of those not surveyed ALSO wrote papers on how climate change is real and man made.

You are spewing garbage. Refute the findings in the article or shut the **** up.

Then link an article I can read without buying a subscription! Come on, this is the internet, who pays for news?

I don't subscribe to WSJ and it came up just fine for me.

It wants 12 dollars for 12 months for me to read more than the first paragraph. Idk, maybe I'm doing something wrong..

Eh, I can't refute an article I can't read. I guess I'll just shut the **** up. Good night, enjoy righteous internet anger and the power it gives your heart.

seems to me the only anger, thread in hand, is the liberals. Why start a thread whining then?

 

[jc456]

God damn Liberals. ******* up a good thing. If it isn't broke, they always find a way to **** shit up.

What about the God-made farmer?

You can't argue with Paul Harvey now, can you?

"God made a farmer".

The farmer is the single most raper of the environment. Is the farmer in "the news"?

No. He is not. Because you Liberals kiss the farmer's sphicter. You lap at the ass of the farmer.

The farmer plants 58 million acres of corn to make ethanol and you call it good.

"Lo- and the farmer made seed of 58 million mother ******* acres".

And the Liberals called it good.

You fuckers crack me up.

What are you even talking about?

Candidate

Agriculture is the number one polluter of the environment.

Is it in the news?

No.

That's what I'm talking about.

*****.

Do you really not understand that farming has nothing to do with climate change?

5 years ago cow farts were all the rage. What happened?

they gave them Rolaids.

 

[skookerasbil]

The ONLY reason why the RW base has chosen not to believe in this phenomenon is because republicans told them not to. Al Gore just had to get involved so of course repubs through a tantrum over it to defend the interests of oil companies. Because the RW base are pawns, they buy into it.

RW clowns: Save your cherry picked "studies" that are NOT peer reviewed and are likely funded by big oil that argue against human caused climate change. Youre wasting your life over them. The vast majority of peer reviewed studies from AROUND THE WORLD confirm it to be real. The science is settled. I don't give a shit what democrats or Obama say about it. I listen to the actual experts.

Survey finds 97 climate science papers agree warming is man-made Dana Nuccitelli Environment The Guardian

You idiot.

Its 2015........nobody gives a rats ass about the 97%.......look at any poll.......nobody cares about the science.........its not a right wing thing you meathead >>



[URL='http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/pew-report-climate-change.jpg.html'][/URL]


Every time I post this gem up, I laugh my balls off!!!!






[URL='http://[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/happy_man_laughing_7.jpg.html][IMG]http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e305/baldaltima/happy_man_laughing_7.jpg[/IMG][/URL]'][URL='http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/happy_man_laughing_7.jpg.html'][/URL][/URL]

 

[skookerasbil]

[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/593fd13e-7ca9-41df-9875-c0b16e2db00e.jpg.html][/URL]

 

[jc456]

To the 97% lie we go....

"The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change.

Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make."

More debunking of lies and bullshit at link.

Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer The Myth of the Climate Change 97 - WSJ

And I'm sure if 97% of 79 out of 3146 agreed climate change was happening and caused by man the other 3077 would have said "what no? Liberal bullshit" but please call them up and find out. Never mind that many of those not surveyed ALSO wrote papers on how climate change is real and man made.

You are spewing garbage. Refute the findings in the article or shut the **** up.

Then link an article I can read without buying a subscription! Come on, this is the internet, who pays for news?

I don't subscribe to WSJ and it came up just fine for me.

Same here. Libs may censor the WSJ...

here is another link to the article. I couldn't get it either.

But I did a search on the title and found it free here.

http://blog.heartland.org/2014/06/the-myth-of-the-climate-change-97/

Credit the heartland institute,

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How much must we lower CO2 to stop the climate from every changing again?

 

[jc456]

Accusations do you no good whatsoever, nor does it lend credibility to your so called cause. There is no doubt that weather patterns change and I do not have to be a scientist to know this. I can go by what I have actually seen with my own eyes. Deserts and forests switch places. It is the way God created nature. You can travel through the United States and observe it from Baja, to Arizona to up through Montana and zigzag back down to Florida the landscapes have changed in the times of earth.

We mined and removed areas that showed clearly that just as seasons change so do weather patterns and land masses. When you can personally look at the actual layers of sedimentations you can observe this also. Upon the land and under it can be visually seen that there are times where the midwest was a sea (you can still see the fossils in the stone if you look), a mud bog, a tropical forest, then it became a desert where sands drifted in into banks up to thirty feet deep, flooded areas to areas where ice ground boulders underneath it as it moved across the land headed southward, to another layer of forest debris, floods again, a layer of blown sand materials, another layer of leaves and then another layer of forest organics and then plains. This can all be seen in just a few acres; even areas where earthquakes pushed and shoved the land mass and turned the soils like a washing machine would can be observed. Layers of organics, artifacts, rocks and fossils can also show what has transpired on earths surface throughout the ages. Heck you don't even have to questimate what happen you can actually get out and personally see it if your willing to open your eyes and look.

In my op if anyone refuses to look at the whole pollution and scheme of earth science they are not really looking. If you are willing to allow mass pollution slide in favor of chemical giants stripping the life out of the soils, waters and the people you really do not seem serious at all in my op.

Why not start asking why do organically grown cattle in the Midwest have Aluminum, Antimony, Arsenic, Barium, Beryllium, Bismuth, Cadmium, Lead, Mercury, Platinum, Thallium, Thorium, Uranium,
Nickel, Silver, Tin and Titanium in their systems? Where did all that higher concentrations of Aluminum and Mercury come from? Mercury is not native to the soil here but we have it in abundance in the soil and the water now. Farming from chemically treated seeds and coal fired plants without scrubbers? Hell for all I know that could also be some of the shit they are releasing above us with those jets that are leaving the chem trails. I know we had some f'ing airplane fly over us spraying crap that came out from the Omaha area while we was working one day in our little obscured area and the next few days or so there were dead birds everywhere. That took place in about 2001. Next thing ya know a week later there was west Nile disease reported by neighbors 15 miles away (dead birds around and some dead horses too and then next it was on the more local news.

I don't have your degrees and you can claim whatever you won't but not everyone is going to go for these bullshit games lil money grubs a few people want to play anymore.

huh?

 

[skookerasbil]

Accusations do you no good whatsoever, nor does it lend credibility to your so called cause. There is no doubt that weather patterns change and I do not have to be a scientist to know this. I can go by what I have actually seen with my own eyes. Deserts and forests switch places. It is the way God created nature. You can travel through the United States and observe it from Baja, to Arizona to up through Montana and zigzag back down to Florida the landscapes have changed in the times of earth.

We mined and removed areas that showed clearly that just as seasons change so do weather patterns and land masses. When you can personally look at the actual layers of sedimentations you can observe this also. Upon the land and under it can be visually seen that there are times where the midwest was a sea (you can still see the fossils in the stone if you look), a mud bog, a tropical forest, then it became a desert where sands drifted in into banks up to thirty feet deep, flooded areas to areas where ice ground boulders underneath it as it moved across the land headed southward, to another layer of forest debris, floods again, a layer of blown sand materials, another layer of leaves and then another layer of forest organics and then plains. This can all be seen in just a few acres; even areas where earthquakes pushed and shoved the land mass and turned the soils like a washing machine would can be observed. Layers of organics, artifacts, rocks and fossils can also show what has transpired on earths surface throughout the ages. Heck you don't even have to questimate what happen you can actually get out and personally see it if your willing to open your eyes and look.

In my op if anyone refuses to look at the whole pollution and scheme of earth science they are not really looking. If you are willing to allow mass pollution slide in favor of chemical giants stripping the life out of the soils, waters and the people you really do not seem serious at all in my op.

Why not start asking why do organically grown cattle in the Midwest have Aluminum, Antimony, Arsenic, Barium, Beryllium, Bismuth, Cadmium, Lead, Mercury, Platinum, Thallium, Thorium, Uranium,
Nickel, Silver, Tin and Titanium in their systems? Where did all that higher concentrations of Aluminum and Mercury come from? Mercury is not native to the soil here but we have it in abundance in the soil and the water now. Farming from chemically treated seeds and coal fired plants without scrubbers? Hell for all I know that could also be some of the shit they are releasing above us with those jets that are leaving the chem trails. I know we had some f'ing airplane fly over us spraying crap that came out from the Omaha area while we was working one day in our little obscured area and the next few days or so there were dead birds everywhere. That took place in about 2001. Next thing ya know a week later there was west Nile disease reported by neighbors 15 miles away (dead birds around and some dead horses too and then next it was on the more local news.

I don't have your degrees and you can claim whatever you won't but not everyone is going to go for these bullshit games lil money grubs a few people want to play anymore.

Agree with ya on the chem trails my friend.......but the global warming nuts in here say only conspiracy guys subscribe to chemtrails. Not sure where you are from but there are a few days a month here in southern New York that you look up in the sky and its a bonafide etch-a-sketch!!! Funnier is the muck blobs that hover in the sky for an hour getting miles wide!!! Nothing to see here.............and wouldn't have any impact on the climate!!!

 

[IanC]

As a liberal with a scientific attitude and education, I resent the global warming debate being distilled down to political factions.

The globe has warmed and man-made CO2 has had an influence. That is the 97℅ consensus and it is agreed upon by skeptics as well.

The difference in opinion lies in the exaggerated claims put forth by the groups clustered under the IPCC umbrella, which do not agree with actual measurements. Warmers see imminent disaster, skeptics see a far less severe problem. Warmers demand that everyone who believes any part of the scenario must believe even the most extreme predictions. Skeptics think we should adjust our concerns to reality rather than models.

Every clawback from the warmers' exaggerated position is ignored in their claims of certainty. Every prediction that fails to materialize is conveniently forgotten, but new predictions are confidently proclaimed as fact.

Skeptics have no delusions that they can predict the future other than we will continue to learn more about the climate system. Especially if we widen our viewpoint to include other mechanisms than just CO2.

 

[S.J.]

The climate change hoax is proof that liberals will believe anything their power hungry leaders tell them to.

 

[emilynghiem]

I'd say this thread is an example that the liberals are running scared. The earth isn't behaving.

Dear jc456 and Billy000
Can you please explain WHY it isn't good enough to address pollution and stopping all toxic emissions and wastes
that are harmful or destructive. Why isn't that enough to get people working on solutions?

Where is this need coming from to FORCE a belief in Global Warming as the ONLY way to incur change and corrections.
If people are rejecting that and dividing over it, isn't it clear that isn't working as well as other approaches that
ENCOURAGE people to seek safer, healthier more sustainable means out of LOVE for people and the environment
and not this FEAR based politics that is driving people away and turning them AGAINST the environmental issues.

Billy000 May I compare this to trying to change homosexuality by PREACHING God and male-female marriage
as superior, and anyone who seeks otherwise is inferior and causing harm to society and humanity.

The only approaches I have ever seen that brought on healing and changing of orientation
weren't based on that. They are based on forgiving and acceptance, unconditionally, to REMOVE the ill causes
of any unnatural or imbalanced conditions.

Do you see what I mean, this negative judgmental approach is not helping but hurting the credibility of the cause.
Similar damage is caused by PREACHING about God, Christianity and traditional marriage
while condemning anyone who lives or takes a different approach and is still seeking healthy not harmful relations.

Do you understand the harm and division this is causing unnecessarily?

Are you SURE there isn't a better way to promote respect for the environment
and sustainable living that DOESN'T INVOLVE JUDGING AND CONDEMNING PEOPLE
if they approach conservation and restoration of natural environment and balance "in other ways
BESIDES Global Warming". Did the Native Americans need to BELIEVE in Global Warming
to live in peace and harmony with the Earth? If you believe that some people live by natural
laws already, and don't need to be preached at, why can't this approach work for others who may not
need arguments proven on Global Warming to understand NOT endangering natural resources,
ecosystems, wildlife and human populations by excess chemicals released into the air, soil and water.

 

[jc456]

I'd say this thread is an example that the liberals are running scared. The earth isn't behaving.

Dear jc456 and Billy000
Can you please explain WHY it isn't good enough to address pollution and stopping all toxic emissions and wastes
that are harmful or destructive. Why isn't that enough to get people working on solutions?

Where is this need coming from to FORCE a belief in Global Warming as the ONLY way to incur change and corrections.
If people are rejecting that and dividing over it, isn't it clear that isn't working as well as other approaches that
ENCOURAGE people to seek safer, healthier more sustainable means out of LOVE for people and the environment
and not this FEAR based politics that is driving people away and turning them AGAINST the environmental issues.

Billy000 May I compare this to trying to change homosexuality by PREACHING God and male-female marriage
as superior, and anyone who seeks otherwise is inferior and causing harm to society and humanity.

The only approaches I have ever seen that brought on healing and changing of orientation
weren't based on that. They are based on forgiving and acceptance, unconditionally, to REMOVE the ill causes
of any unnatural or imbalanced conditions.

Do you see what I mean, this negative judgmental approach is not helping but hurting the credibility of the cause.
Similar damage is caused by PREACHING about God, Christianity and traditional marriage
while condemning anyone who lives or takes a different approach and is still seeking healthy not harmful relations.

Do you understand the harm and division this is causing unnecessarily?

Are you SURE there isn't a better way to promote respect for the environment
and sustainable living that DOESN'T INVOLVE JUDGING AND CONDEMNING PEOPLE
if they approach conservation and restoration of natural environment and balance "in other ways
BESIDES Global Warming". Did the Native Americans need to BELIEVE in Global Warming
to live in peace and harmony with the Earth? If you believe that some people live by natural
laws already, and don't need to be preached at, why can't this approach work for others who may not
need arguments proven on Global Warming to understand NOT endangering natural resources,
ecosystems, wildlife and human populations by excess chemicals released into the air, soil and water.

first, shut down the EPA and give the states back their rights. Let's start there. Pollution is a problem and ought to be addressed reasonably. You first have to get to negotiations on what is harmful and what is not and what is practical and what is impractical. I, for one, am tired of being dictated at. Up their ass. Negotiate and treat your neighbor with respect. Calling people names and insulting them is a very low form of life.

 

[emilynghiem]

As a liberal with a scientific attitude and education, I resent the global warming debate being distilled down to political factions.

The globe has warmed and man-made CO2 has had an influence. That is the 97℅ consensus and it is agreed upon by skeptics as well.

The difference in opinion lies in the exaggerated claims put forth by the groups clustered under the IPCC umbrella, which do not agree with actual measurements. Warmers see imminent disaster, skeptics see a far less severe problem. Warmers demand that everyone who believes any part of the scenario must believe even the most extreme predictions. Skeptics think we should adjust our concerns to reality rather than models.

Every clawback from the warmers' exaggerated position is ignored in their claims of certainty. Every prediction that fails to materialize is conveniently forgotten, but new predictions are confidently proclaimed as fact.

Skeptics have no delusions that they can predict the future other than we will continue to learn more about the climate system. Especially if we widen our viewpoint to include other mechanisms than just CO2.

Dear IanC can you prove that other ways of teaching respect for the environment won't work also?
What did Native Americans use to understand the web of life and not disrupting the natural balance and order.
What have Buddhists used all this time to understand not to have imbalanced or unnatural desires or excess
behavior that causes problems because all life is interconnected?

If neither of those tribes or religious followings depended on "Global warming" to be proven
in order to commit to living naturally in harmony and peace with all things in creation,
then why is this suddenly a religious condition and prerequisite for that?

Why can't global consciousness be raised by respect for life, for relations and environment,
for humanity and society. Where does this REQUIRE global warming 'as the only way' to teach that.

This seems very strange that the same people who jump on other fundamentalists
for teaching Jesus "is the only way" or Islam "is the only way" or THEIR WAY is the "only way"
have made such a religion out of Global Warming as the only way. Really?

Can you explain why Buddhists, Native Americans, and other naturalists don't rely on
any knowledge, stats or proof of Global Warming to commit to respecting the earth and all life
and keeping the balance for sustainable peace and harmony?

When did it become required to add Global Warming as a condition?

 

[jc456]

As a liberal with a scientific attitude and education, I resent the global warming debate being distilled down to political factions.

The globe has warmed and man-made CO2 has had an influence. That is the 97℅ consensus and it is agreed upon by skeptics as well.

The difference in opinion lies in the exaggerated claims put forth by the groups clustered under the IPCC umbrella, which do not agree with actual measurements. Warmers see imminent disaster, skeptics see a far less severe problem. Warmers demand that everyone who believes any part of the scenario must believe even the most extreme predictions. Skeptics think we should adjust our concerns to reality rather than models.

Every clawback from the warmers' exaggerated position is ignored in their claims of certainty. Every prediction that fails to materialize is conveniently forgotten, but new predictions are confidently proclaimed as fact.

Skeptics have no delusions that they can predict the future other than we will continue to learn more about the climate system. Especially if we widen our viewpoint to include other mechanisms than just CO2.

Dear IanC can you prove that other ways of teaching respect for the environment won't work also?
What did Native Americans use to understand the web of life and not disrupting the natural balance and order.
What have Buddhists used all this time to understand not to have imbalanced or unnatural desires or excess
behavior that causes problems because all life is interconnected?

If neither of those tribes or religious followings depended on "Global warming" to be proven
in order to commit to living naturally in harmony and peace with all things in creation,
then why is this suddenly a religious condition and prerequisite for that?

Why can't global consciousness be raised by respect for life, for relations and environment,
for humanity and society. Where does this REQUIRE global warming 'as the only way' to teach that.

This seems very strange that the same people who jump on other fundamentalists
for teaching Jesus "is the only way" or Islam "is the only way" or THEIR WAY is the "only way"
have made such a religion out of Global Warming as the only way. Really?

Can you explain why Buddhists, Native Americans, and other naturalists don't rely on
any knowledge, stats or proof of Global Warming to commit to respecting the earth and all life
and keeping the balance for sustainable peace and harmony?

When did it become required to add Global Warming as a condition?

seriously? Native Americans and Buddhists? Really, how many people are on the planet? Do you have any rational idea on how silly this sounds? The fact is there is one faction of society that has moved Global Warming into the position it is in today, and that group leans left. Those who oppose that stupid idea are classified as not necessary to exist on the planet any longer. So friend, whatever your intentions, your out in la la land. Reel it in and let's discuss environmental problems reasonably as I stated in my previous post.