Its called"Earth Cyclical Climate Change,"Global warming is a scam.!

[52ndStreet]

To all of you, Methane is now being released from the ocean , and melting Ice , and from Siberian permafrost, this gas heats up the Earth a lot faster than CO2,.Humans are not releasing this Methane,
nature is doing this naturally.As I said at the beginning of this post, it is called,"Earth Cyclical Climate Change" , human Global warming is all false, an elaborate scam. Created by the Wealthy industrialized nations of the west, to extort money from the developing third world nations.

Increasing atmospheric CO2 by 40% is having the effect of melting the permafrost and releasing methane. This will have a multiplier effect on global warming.

Nice delusional conspiracy theory, though.

There is nothing delusional, or conspiratorial about it. This is occurring with out any human input. Nature is doing this all alone.!$!$

 

[Chris]

To all of you, Methane is now being released from the ocean , and melting Ice , and from Siberian permafrost, this gas heats up the Earth a lot faster than CO2,.Humans are not releasing this Methane,
nature is doing this naturally.As I said at the beginning of this post, it is called,"Earth Cyclical Climate Change" , human Global warming is all false, an elaborate scam. Created by the Wealthy industrialized nations of the west, to extort money from the developing third world nations.

Increasing atmospheric CO2 by 40% is having the effect of melting the permafrost and releasing methane. This will have a multiplier effect on global warming.

Nice delusional conspiracy theory, though.

There is nothing delusional, or conspiratorial about it. This is occurring with out any human input. Nature is doing this all alone.!$!$

We are adding billions of tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year.

That is not "Nature."

 

[Meister]

No matter how many times you repeat a lie, it will never become the truth. And you have repeated that lie endlessly. But here are the real facts.

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Scientific opinion on climate change
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article documents current scientific opinion on climate change as given by synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. It does not document the views of individual scientists, individual universities, or laboratories, nor self-selected lists of individuals such as petitions.

National and international science academies and professional societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 that

An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[1]
Since 2007 no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. A few organisations hold non-committal positions.

Old Rocks, you are the liar. Your UN IPCC has been proven to be as much of a fraud as you have. Like in my earlier post which you of course ignored showed that 14,000 letters were sent in for the global climate change, only 948 were used for their study. Now that is science only you would believe in. So when you go tell your story full of your lies, just remember you have been debunked and exposed for the liar that you are....you little twit

Yap, yap, yap, little puppy. I have posted sites from the scientific societies around the world. And scientific research organizations, both governmental and private. You post from shitheat wingnut sites like the Cato Institute. A political site, zero scientific standing.

Get back to us when you have something that is actually real.

Can't get around the facts Old Rocks. You have been debunked with all your cherry picked "bought and paid for" science.

 

[Oddball]

We are adding billions of tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year.

That is not "Nature."

Can't you just post the list of your continuously repeated brain-dead platitudinous talking points somewhere, number them, and just post that number when you want to repeat it...Yet again.

It'd certainly save you a lot of keystrokes.

 

[52ndStreet]

To all of you, Methane is now being released from the ocean , and melting Ice , and from Siberian permafrost, this gas heats up the Earth a lot faster than CO2,.Humans are not releasing this Methane,
nature is doing this naturally.As I said at the beginning of this post, it is called,"Earth Cyclical Climate Change" , human Global warming is all false, an elaborate scam. Created by the Wealthy industrialized nations of the west, to extort money from the developing third world nations.

Increasing atmospheric CO2 by 40% is having the effect of melting the permafrost and releasing methane. This will have a multiplier effect on global warming.

Nice delusional conspiracy theory, though.

There is nothing delusional, or conspiratorial about it. This is occurring with out any human input. Nature is doing this all alone.!$!$

I just watched a show on the history channel about"Global warming". They claim that the Earth was frozen solid, at one point in the past.Also, the entire Earth was also hot and tropical also. So, what we have here is a situation, were the Earth, all by itself,goes through cycles
of Hot and cold.Humans have little to no input in the Earth's climate.

 

[code1211]

I love it when somebody on a message board thinks they know more about physics than the guys at MIT.

In your article, the guys at MIT knew one thing in 2003 and a completely different thing in 2009. In 2009, after 6 years of Global Cooling, the guys at MIT said that the guys at MIT were wrong, forcasting a future too cool, by a factor of 100%.

I'm not a physics guy from MIT, but when a physics guy from MIT says that a physics guy from MIT is 100% wrong, it makes one wonder if the physics guy from MIT who is 100% wrong is wrong or if the physics guy from MIT who says the guy who is 100% wrong is 100% wrong.

Am I wrong? Too? And with whom do I stand as wrong or are we all wrong or are only some of us wrong?

If being from MIT makes a guy right, then, when they disagree, they are both still right. Maybe they're both wrong? Which of the guys from MIT are you citing as being right?

Please show your work.

New Study: Global Temperatures to Rise 9 Degrees by 2100 | Green Business | Reuters

Again, the question is this: If being from MIT in and of itself means that one is right and two people both from MIT disagree or can prove something to high degree of probablitlity and are in disagreement, what does this indicate about the proven thing?

Repeating the same talking point is not an answer for this question. What is indicated when experts disagree?

 

[Chris]

We are adding billions of tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year.

That is not "Nature."

Can't you just post the list of your continuously repeated brain-dead platitudinous talking points somewhere, number them, and just post that number when you want to repeat it...Yet again.

It'd certainly save you a lot of keystrokes.

I know it's tough when the facts don't fit your worldview.

All you have left are personal insults.

 

[Chris]

[/COLOR]


In your article, the guys at MIT knew one thing in 2003 and a completely different thing in 2009. In 2009, after 6 years of Global Cooling, the guys at MIT said that the guys at MIT were wrong, forcasting a future too cool, by a factor of 100%.

I'm not a physics guy from MIT, but when a physics guy from MIT says that a physics guy from MIT is 100% wrong, it makes one wonder if the physics guy from MIT who is 100% wrong is wrong or if the physics guy from MIT who says the guy who is 100% wrong is 100% wrong.

Am I wrong? Too? And with whom do I stand as wrong or are we all wrong or are only some of us wrong?

If being from MIT makes a guy right, then, when they disagree, they are both still right. Maybe they're both wrong? Which of the guys from MIT are you citing as being right?

Please show your work.

New Study: Global Temperatures to Rise 9 Degrees by 2100 | Green Business | Reuters

Again, the question is this: If being from MIT in and of itself means that one is right and two people both from MIT disagree or can prove something to high degree of probablitlity and are in disagreement, what does this indicate about the proven thing?

Repeating the same talking point is not an answer for this question. What is indicated when experts disagree?

The experts don't disagree.

CO2 causes the earth to retain heat. This was proven experimentally in 1859.

 

[Oddball]

I know it's tough when the facts don't fit your worldview.

You would know.

 

[Chris]

I know it's tough when the facts don't fit your worldview.

You would know.

The sun is at its lowest point of activity in 80 years.

So why is the ice still melting?

 

[KittenKoder]

New Study: Global Temperatures to Rise 9 Degrees by 2100 | Green Business | Reuters

Again, the question is this: If being from MIT in and of itself means that one is right and two people both from MIT disagree or can prove something to high degree of probablitlity and are in disagreement, what does this indicate about the proven thing?

Repeating the same talking point is not an answer for this question. What is indicated when experts disagree?

The experts don't disagree.

CO2 causes the earth to retain heat. This was proven experimentally in 1859.

Um ... yeah they do disagree, just those who are against the global warming con are not recognized because they don't agree with those who are funding them.

 

[Oddball]

The experts don't disagree.

CO2 causes the earth to retain heat. This was proven experimentally in 1859.

Any atmospheric gas retains heat.

That was proven looooooong before 1859.

 

[Oddball]

The sun is at its lowest point of activity in 80 years.

So why is the ice still melting?

This is like fuckin' Closed Head Injury Theater!!

How about the weaker magnetosphere, professor?

 

[Chris]

The sun is at its lowest point of activity in 80 years.

So why is the ice still melting?

This is like fuckin' Closed Head Injury Theater!!

How about the weaker magnetosphere, professor?

The article you posted about that said that a weaker magnetosphere did not effect the temperatures on the earth.

The article YOU POSTED......

 

[Yurt]

globing warming stuff cracks me up...

let's see...we're still coming back from an ice age

no wait....we're entering an ice age

no, thats not right....the earth is actually heating up

you guys would be standing around as the near global glaciers, a mere 100 years after an ice age, retreat so man could live on more fully on the earth and scream.....global warming

 

[Oddball]

The article you posted about that said that a weaker magnetosphere did not effect the temperatures on the earth.

The article YOU POSTED......

Yet they didn't show their work.....On purpose, methinks.

Meanwhile, the Martian ice caps have been melting too. I'm not aware of any coal burners or SUVs over there.

 

[code1211]

I love it when somebody on a message board thinks they know more about physics than the guys at MIT.

In your article, the guys at MIT knew one thing in 2003 and a completely different thing in 2009. In 2009, after 6 years of Global Cooling, the guys at MIT said that the guys at MIT were wrong, forcasting a future too cool, by a factor of 100%.

I'm not a physics guy from MIT, but when a physics guy from MIT says that a physics guy from MIT is 100% wrong, it makes one wonder if the physics guy from MIT who is 100% wrong is wrong or if the physics guy from MIT who says the guy who is 100% wrong is 100% wrong.

Am I wrong? Too? And with whom do I stand as wrong or are we all wrong or are only some of us wrong?

If being from MIT makes a guy right, then, when they disagree, they are both still right. Maybe they're both wrong? Which of the guys from MIT are you citing as being right?

Please show your work.

Sure, a real cooling in progress. 2008, solar minimum, strong persistant La Nina, still makes the top ten of the warmest years in the last 150.


Read at : UNnews
2008 AMONG 10 WARMEST YEARS ON RECORD (UNNews) « Desertification
2008 AMONG 10 WARMEST YEARS ON RECORD, UN REPORTS
New York, Dec 18 2008 11:00AM

The year 2008 is likely to rank as the 10th warmest year on record since the beginning of the instrumental climate records in 1850, although the global average temperature was slightly lower than previous years of the 21st century, according to the United Nations meteorological agency. The combined sea-surface and land-surface air temperature for 2008 is estimated at 0.31 degrees Celsius (C) or 0.56 Fahrenheit (F), above the 1961-1990 annual average of 14C, or 57.2F, while the Arctic Sea ice volume during the melt season was its lowest since satellite measurements began in 1979, the UN World Meteorological Organization (<”http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_835_en.html”>WMO) said. The average temperature of 2008 was moderated by La Niña, a weather phenomenon that shrinks the warm pool water in the central and western Pacific, which developed in the latter half of 2007.
Climate extremes, including devastating floods, severe and persistent droughts, snowstorms, and heat and cold waves, were recorded in many parts of the world, with above-average temperatures all over Europe and a remarkably cold winter over Eurasia stretching from Turkey to China, causing hundreds of casualties in Afghanistan and China.

2 points:

1. You post a talking point that rationalizes a reduced temperature for 2007 and 2008. The temperature fall has been in process 2001 -2009. What are your sources for 2001. 2002. 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2009? I am assuming that your sources would prove that a falling temperature is really a rising temperature so there is really no need for this, but really, why ignor the data and rationalize rather than interpret what is really happening in the real world?

2. Einstein said that no matter how beautiful a theory may be, eventually you must show results. Results are not a bunch of geeks saying that they really, really believe that something might happen. Results are that something happened.

Why do none of your Societies recognize that the temperature has dropped since 2001 and put forth their thoughts on this reduction?

 

[elvis]

We are adding billions of tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year.

That is not "Nature."

Can't you just post the list of your continuously repeated brain-dead platitudinous talking points somewhere, number them, and just post that number when you want to repeat it...Yet again.

It'd certainly save you a lot of keystrokes.

I know it's tough when the facts don't fit your worldview.

All you have left are personal insults.

no, daft ****, we've refuted your simple-minded ass hundreds of times. The personal insults are just an added bonus.

 

[Chris]

Again, the question is this: If being from MIT in and of itself means that one is right and two people both from MIT disagree or can prove something to high degree of probablitlity and are in disagreement, what does this indicate about the proven thing?

Repeating the same talking point is not an answer for this question. What is indicated when experts disagree?

The experts don't disagree.

CO2 causes the earth to retain heat. This was proven experimentally in 1859.

Um ... yeah they do disagree, just those who are against the global warming con are not recognized because they don't agree with those who are funding them.

Wrong.

Every scientist knows that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

 

[Chris]

CO2 causes the Earth to retain heat. We are pumping BILLIONS OF TONS of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. Soon we will have DOUBLED the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. What effect will that have? It will cause the Earth to warm. Why is Venus hotter than Mercury, even though Mercury is millions of miles closer to the Sun? Because Venus has CO2 in its atmosphere. I have yet to see any articles claiming that CO2 is not the reason that Venus is hotter than Mercury. Why? Because there are no oil and coal companies on Venus!