It's Official! liberals/progressives/Obama supporters are like

[healthmyths]

global warming evangelistas...... constantly having to defend their archaic, cliched and definitely OUT of Touch with reality ideology.. Case in Point!

Earth Gains A Record Amount Of Sea Ice In 2013 —

‘Earth has gained 19,000 Manhattans of sea ice since this date last year, the largest increase on record’
'There is more sea ice now than there was on this date in 2002'

Earth Gains A Record Amount Of Sea Ice In 2013 ? ?Earth has gained 19,000 Manhattans of sea ice since this date last year, the largest increase on record? | Climate Depot

And logical rational people were trying to explain to these head in the sand chicken little sky is falling that you'd better be sure there is NO bias in your data... BUT sure enough, when flat earth people hold to these evangelistic charismatic beliefs, they
tend to ignore the little details... LIKE not taking in account 12.5% of the Earth's land mass when averaging global temperatures for the last 60 years!

12.5% of the Earth's land mass is missing in the temperature readings which by omission has skewed the average temperature higher as only those stations in large population centers were used.

"The number of [Siberian] stations increased from 8 in 1901 to 23 in 1951 and then decreased to 12 from 1989 to
present only four stations, those at Irkutsk, Bratsk, Chita and Kirensk, cover the entire 20th century.

IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the
urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations…

The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the
world’s land mass.
The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.

Climategatekeeping: Siberia « Climate Audit

 

[Crackerjaxon]

They're right because it's "science."

...and science is never wrong. Hydrogen turns into human beings in the progressive mind, unborn children become globs of cells, the earth warms as it freezes.

If "science" says it, it's true. Anyone who disagrees with them is anti-science.

 

[healthmyths]

2007 prediction that summer in the North Pole could be “ice-free by 2013” that was cited by former Vice President Al Gore in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech has proven to be off… by 920,000 square miles. In his Dec. 10, 2007 “Earth has a fever” speech, Gore referred to a prediction by U.S. climate scientist Wieslaw Maslowski that the Arctic’s summer ice could “completely disappear” by 2013 due to global warming caused by carbon emissions. - See more at: Wrong: Al Gore Predicted Arctic Summer Ice Could Disappear In 2013 | CNS News

 

[aaronleland]

The GOP thinks global warming is "out of touch and archaic", but talking snakes and burning bushes is science. It's no wonder the rest of the world considers them a joke.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The GOP thinks global warming is "out of touch and archaic", but talking snakes and burning bushes is science. It's no wonder the rest of the world considers them a joke.

Yes, countering scientific fact with demagoguery of your own. No wonder people think liberals are considered a joke.

 

[peach174]

The GOP thinks global warming is "out of touch and archaic", but talking snakes and burning bushes is science. It's no wonder the rest of the world considers them a joke.

There is a burning bush called Fraxinella. It grows wild all over in that area of the country.
The bush emits a flammable gas and when the sun gets hot it ignites the bush, but burns so hot and so fast that it does not burn the bush.

The Snake did not talk, Satan did.

 

[Katzndogz]

The GOP thinks global warming is "out of touch and archaic", but talking snakes and burning bushes is science. It's no wonder the rest of the world considers them a joke.

There is a burning bush called Fraxinella. It grows wild all over in that area of the country.
The bush emits a flammable gas and when the sun gets hot it ignites the bush, but burns so hot and so fast that it does not burn the bush.

The Snake did not talk, Satan did.

I have never heard of that before. I looked it up. You are absolutely correct. The flames burn but do not burn the bush which is called The Burning Bush.

 

[Mr Natural]

The GOP thinks global warming is "out of touch and archaic", but talking snakes and burning bushes is science. It's no wonder the rest of the world considers them a joke.

There is a burning bush called Fraxinella. It grows wild all over in that area of the country.
The bush emits a flammable gas and when the sun gets hot it ignites the bush, but burns so hot and so fast that it does not burn the bush.

The Snake did not talk, Satan did.

That only makes the fable that much more ridiculous.

 

[OKTexas]

Gore doesn't care his predictions were wrong, he's already put the money in the bank and governments all over the world have used them to exert more control over their people, the US included. He's a happy little commie.

 

[konradv]

They're right because it's "science."

...and science is never wrong. Hydrogen turns into human beings in the progressive mind, unborn children become globs of cells, the earth warms as it freezes.

If "science" says it, it's true. Anyone who disagrees with them is anti-science.

If the science is wrong, where is the increase in CO2 over the last few hundred years coming from and what happens to the energy absorbed by that CO2? It's easy to ridicule, but let's see if you can come up with a satisfactory explanation.

 

[aaronleland]

The GOP thinks global warming is "out of touch and archaic", but talking snakes and burning bushes is science. It's no wonder the rest of the world considers them a joke.

Yes, countering scientific fact with demagoguery of your own. No wonder people think liberals are considered a joke.

I'm not a liberal. I'm a libertarian. And not a fake libertarian like you, who defends the GOP at every turn. You will vote GOP in 2016, and like it.

 

[francoHFW]

And it's STILL crappy thin 'new'

 

[healthmyths]

They're right because it's "science."

...and science is never wrong. Hydrogen turns into human beings in the progressive mind, unborn children become globs of cells, the earth warms as it freezes.

If "science" says it, it's true. Anyone who disagrees with them is anti-science.

If the science is wrong, where is the increase in CO2 over the last few hundred years coming from and what happens to the energy absorbed by that CO2? It's easy to ridicule, but let's see if you can come up with a satisfactory explanation.

Where is that happening because it is NOT happening in the USA!
"The U.S. landscape acts as a net carbon sink—it sequesters more carbon than it emits.
Two types of analyses confirm this:
1) atmospheric, or top-down, methods that look at changes in CO2 concentrations; and
2) land-based, or bottom-up, methods that incorporate on-the-ground inventories or plot measurements.
Net sequestration (i.e., the difference between carbon gains and losses) in U.S. forests, urban trees and agricultural soils totaled almost 840 teragrams (Tg) of CO2 equivalent (or about 230 Tg or million metric tons of carbon equivalent) in 2001 (Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks).
This offsets approximately 15% of total U.S. CO2 emissions from the energy, transportation and other sectors. Net carbon sequestration in the forest sector in 2005 offset 10% of U.S. CO2 emissions. In the near future, we project that U.S. forests will continue to sequester carbon at a rate similar to that in recent years. Based on a comparison of our estimates to a compilation of land-based estimates of non-forest carbon
sinks from the literature, we estimate that the conterminous U.S. annually sequesters 149–330 Tg C year1. Forests, urban trees, and wood
products are responsible for 65–91% of this sink.

http://www.ncrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/jrnl/2007/nrs_2007_woodbury_001.pdf

In simple language.. USA landscape absorbs all the CO2 emitted and could absorb another 10 to 15% if needed.

 

[cutter]

They're right because it's "science."

...and science is never wrong. Hydrogen turns into human beings in the progressive mind, unborn children become globs of cells, the earth warms as it freezes.

If "science" says it, it's true. Anyone who disagrees with them is anti-science.

If the science is wrong, where is the increase in CO2 over the last few hundred years coming from and what happens to the energy absorbed by that CO2? It's easy to ridicule, but let's see if you can come up with a satisfactory explanation.

Where is that happening because it is NOT happening in the USA!
"The U.S. landscape acts as a net carbon sink—it sequesters more carbon than it emits.
Two types of analyses confirm this:
1) atmospheric, or top-down, methods that look at changes in CO2 concentrations; and
2) land-based, or bottom-up, methods that incorporate on-the-ground inventories or plot measurements.
Net sequestration (i.e., the difference between carbon gains and losses) in U.S. forests, urban trees and agricultural soils totaled almost 840 teragrams (Tg) of CO2 equivalent (or about 230 Tg or million metric tons of carbon equivalent) in 2001 (Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks).
This offsets approximately 15% of total U.S. CO2 emissions from the energy, transportation and other sectors. Net carbon sequestration in the forest sector in 2005 offset 10% of U.S. CO2 emissions. In the near future, we project that U.S. forests will continue to sequester carbon at a rate similar to that in recent years. Based on a comparison of our estimates to a compilation of land-based estimates of non-forest carbon
sinks from the literature, we estimate that the conterminous U.S. annually sequesters 149–330 Tg C year1. Forests, urban trees, and wood
products are responsible for 65–91% of this sink.

http://www.ncrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/jrnl/2007/nrs_2007_woodbury_001.pdf

In simple language.. USA landscape absorbs all the CO2 emitted and could absorb another 10 to 15% if needed.

Are you trying to confuse the progressives with facts? You know the only " facts" they believe it what their leaders of some celebrity say. Your not supposed to use scientific facts when debating them. It's unfair.

 

[konradv]

They're right because it's "science."

...and science is never wrong. Hydrogen turns into human beings in the progressive mind, unborn children become globs of cells, the earth warms as it freezes.

If "science" says it, it's true. Anyone who disagrees with them is anti-science.

If the science is wrong, where is the increase in CO2 over the last few hundred years coming from and what happens to the energy absorbed by that CO2? It's easy to ridicule, but let's see if you can come up with a satisfactory explanation.

Where is that happening because it is NOT happening in the USA!
"The U.S. landscape acts as a net carbon sink—it sequesters more carbon than it emits.
Two types of analyses confirm this:
1) atmospheric, or top-down, methods that look at changes in CO2 concentrations; and
2) land-based, or bottom-up, methods that incorporate on-the-ground inventories or plot measurements.
Net sequestration (i.e., the difference between carbon gains and losses) in U.S. forests, urban trees and agricultural soils totaled almost 840 teragrams (Tg) of CO2 equivalent (or about 230 Tg or million metric tons of carbon equivalent) in 2001 (Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks).
This offsets approximately 15% of total U.S. CO2 emissions from the energy, transportation and other sectors. Net carbon sequestration in the forest sector in 2005 offset 10% of U.S. CO2 emissions. In the near future, we project that U.S. forests will continue to sequester carbon at a rate similar to that in recent years. Based on a comparison of our estimates to a compilation of land-based estimates of non-forest carbon
sinks from the literature, we estimate that the conterminous U.S. annually sequesters 149–330 Tg C year1. Forests, urban trees, and wood
products are responsible for 65–91% of this sink.

http://www.ncrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/jrnl/2007/nrs_2007_woodbury_001.pdf

In simple language.. USA landscape absorbs all the CO2 emitted and could absorb another 10 to 15% if needed.

That doesn't answer the question. We're talking GLOBAL warming.