It's all just crap...

So, 97% of the climatologist in the world state that Global Warming is AGW is real, and that it is a clear and present danger.

But you would believe a TV Weatherman who has read a 'few' papers.
 
Works for me, he points out plenty of facts. No scare tactics. Just tells us about the BS.

No, he did no such thing. Where is his data? What evidence did he present that counters the observed melting of the glaciers and ice caps?

Ollie, I am going to call you on this nonsense when the tempertures exceed 1998.
 
Works for me, he points out plenty of facts. No scare tactics. Just tells us about the BS.

No, he did no such thing. Where is his data? What evidence did he present that counters the observed melting of the glaciers and ice caps?

Ollie, I am going to call you on this nonsense when the tempertures exceed 1998.

No problem. I am not a scientist, nor have I dug into this that deeply, But When I am shown that scientists have faked info, and hear from so many how they disagreed even without the faked info being brought to light. Well, my gut feeling tells me that the earth will take care of it's self for many many more thousands of years. And If I am wrong, we humans will have to adapt. And we will.
 
I'm with John Coleman. I think he has hit the nail right on the head with this. Believe what you care to believe. I believe John. If for some reason it turns out that Mr. John Coleman was wrong, dig me up out of the grave in 6 or 7 thousand years and say "I told you so." Until then, you worry about it. I've got better things to do with my time.
 
Great video!

Time has proven that the AGW theory is a great big steaming pile of crap!! Real science does not require constant hyperbole, demagoguery, data manipulation, political arm twisting, and fear tactics. AGW is no more a science than Astrology. It is a political movement, nothing more.
 
I'm with John Coleman. I think he has hit the nail right on the head with this. Believe what you care to believe. I believe John. If for some reason it turns out that Mr. John Coleman was wrong, dig me up out of the grave in 6 or 7 thousand years and say "I told you so." Until then, you worry about it. I've got better things to do with my time.
Actually, we could dig you up in less than a hundred to see how things are going. Then you may need to explain to any of your descendants why we didn't err on the side of caution for the sake of their future quality of life. I think I would've been a tad pissed if previous generations had simply dismissed threats to country and world because they had better things to do.
 
I'm with John Coleman. I think he has hit the nail right on the head with this. Believe what you care to believe. I believe John. If for some reason it turns out that Mr. John Coleman was wrong, dig me up out of the grave in 6 or 7 thousand years and say "I told you so." Until then, you worry about it. I've got better things to do with my time.
Actually, we could dig you up in less than a hundred to see how things are going. Then you may need to explain to any of your descendants why we didn't err on the side of caution for the sake of their future quality of life. I think I would've been a tad pissed if previous generations had simply dismissed threats to country and world because they had better things to do.

Climate cycles are way longer than one hundred years. Even if you are closer to right, the future generation will be better off with warmer temps, due to the damage done by the Democrats Health Care Reform that left everyone living outdoors.
 
No problem. I am not a scientist, nor have I dug into this that deeply, But When I am shown that scientists have faked info, and hear from so many how they disagreed even without the faked info being brought to light. Well, my gut feeling tells me that the earth will take care of it's self for many many more thousands of years. And If I am wrong, we humans will have to adapt. And we will.
The Earth will be fine, yes. The issue seems to be the biosphere as we know it, and the costs to modern civilization. From what I've seen, mitigation is a less risky, and potentially much less costly approach. Probably better than gambling on gut feelings. And I'd love to see some specifics of all this "faked info", beyond out-of-context manufactured controversy.
 
Climate cycles are way longer than one hundred years.
If you're talking about natural Milankovitch cycles, yes. But if humans continue accelerating climate change, we should see some interesting results within a century. That doesn't mean the changes will stop at a century, in that scenario.

Even if you are closer to right, the future generation will be better off with warmer temps, due to the damage done by the Democrats Health Care Reform that left everyone living outdoors.
Funny, all the sky-high deficit spending of previous years didn't seem to raise much concern about that. I'd have to see more details to determine whether their plan will leave more people on the streets than crazy premiums, gutted individual and group coverage, and ruinous medical bills.
 
Climate cycles are way longer than one hundred years.
If you're talking about natural Milankovitch cycles, yes. But if humans continue accelerating climate change, we should see some interesting results within a century. That doesn't mean the changes will stop at a century, in that scenario.

Even if you are closer to right, the future generation will be better off with warmer temps, due to the damage done by the Democrats Health Care Reform that left everyone living outdoors.
Funny, all the sky-high deficit spending of previous years didn't seem to raise much concern about that. I'd have to see more details to determine whether their plan will leave more people on the streets than crazy premiums, gutted individual and group coverage, and ruinous medical bills.

Congratulations, you passed your liberal test with flying colors. They already admitted the plan will cost more than leaving it alone. I am talking about health care reform, but the same holds true for global warming.
 
Best estimates, by 2030 no glaciers in Glacier National Park. There may well be no ice in the Arctic Ocean in the summer by that time. A growing population, and an increasingly impacted agriculture industry. I will see major changes during the remaining years of my life, and I am 66.
 
Best estimates, by 2030 no glaciers in Glacier National Park. There may well be no ice in the Arctic Ocean in the summer by that time. A growing population, and an increasingly impacted agriculture industry. I will see major changes during the remaining years of my life, and I am 66.

:cuckoo: Go sell your fear somewhere else, we ain't buyin.........
 
Learn from any ol' TV meteorologist on matters of climatology? Dunno about that. Some get it right, many don't.

The point is not who is telling you this or that, it is what he is telling you.

1) given the historical record, we are not seeing anything out of the ordinary for the last 10,000 years
2) the climate is very variable
3) other things than CO2 have a marked effect on temperature, and they seem to be driving the recent temperature changes.

Proof is not who said it, but what is said.

He gave good numbers. Something the hysterics on the other side don't do.
 
Congratulations, you passed your liberal test with flying colors. They already admitted the plan will cost more than leaving it alone. I am talking about health care reform, but the same holds true for global warming.
Says who? It's easy to make assertions about what an entire group have "admitted", and it's easy to reduce everything to a "liberal test".
 
Learn from any ol' TV meteorologist on matters of climatology? Dunno about that. Some get it right, many don't.

The point is not who is telling you this or that, it is what he is telling you.

1) given the historical record, we are not seeing anything out of the ordinary for the last 10,000 years
2) the climate is very variable
3) other things than CO2 have a marked effect on temperature, and they seem to be driving the recent temperature changes.

Proof is not who said it, but what is said.

He gave good numbers. Something the hysterics on the other side don't do.
How do you know they're "good numbers", and the whole story? Where's the scientific basis for high variability in holocene climate (the global averages)? While the effect of CO2 accumulation is well-established, I'm still waiting for that successfully peer-reviewed study saying natural factors "seem to be driving" the overall trend of recent decades. As entitled as Coleman is to his opinion, I put no more stock in it than I'd put in the opinion of a proctologist on matters of cardiovascular health. But I understand that for some, it's just too convenient to resist.
 
John Coleman, the co-founder of the Weather Channel, talks about Global Warming and explains it clearly for anybody who has an open mind and proves that Global Warming is just a scam. Give it a listen and learn.

It's a funny thing - I wonder if there really is anyone out there who genuinely doesn't believe that climate change is real.

I am starting to suspect that climate scepticism is becoming a little like Holocaust Denial - no one actually believes it, but it is the only way of maintaining a political point of view that would otherwise be laughable.
 
from my perspective, climate change hysteria is closer to holocaust denial than skepticism about it. You can only engage in climate hysteria and holocaust denial if you can believe in the obviously not true
 

Forum List

Back
Top