Member this FAKE NEWS? I member. Do you member?

[skookerasbil]

No proof, just an appeal to authorities who have been caught lying and miking things up... Nice..

Guy, 95% of Climate Scientists... Um, no, you are the one who lacks evidence.

lol.......but more than 30,000 MA and PhD scientists say its a bunch of hooey!!. They must be fake scientists!!

Losing again s0n...........gotta pick some other issues so as not to constantly get pwned. Gun grabbing and climate change..........check any poll.........at the very bottom of peoples list of concerns.


Who's not winning?

 

[flacaltenn]

No proof, just an appeal to authorities who have been caught lying and miking things up... Nice..

Guy, 95% of Climate Scientists... Um, no, you are the one who lacks evidence.

That's a mere legend. The only thing that 95% of climate scientists agree on is that the Earth is warming and CO2 emissions may be PART of that warming. It does not answer the more important questions of feedbacks, accelerations and the other conjectures of GW that make a mild contribution into a ******* apocalypse. Also does not address the "common wisdom and folklore" of seeing definite effects of GW TODAY -- by just looking at your window. The DEFINITIVE opinion poll of scientists for over 12 years running are the Bray and von Storch surveys, that ask nearly ONE HUNDRED questions about GW. And the results there are FAR less scary and less of a consensus..

 

[JoeB131]

That's a mere legend. The only thing that 95% of climate scientists agree on is that the Earth is warming and CO2 emissions may be PART of that warming. It does not answer the more important questions of feedbacks, accelerations and the other conjectures of GW that make a mild contribution into a ******* apocalypse. Also does not address the "common wisdom and folklore" of seeing definite effects of GW TODAY -- by just looking at your window. The DEFINITIVE opinion poll of scientists for over 12 years running are the Bray and von Storch surveys, that ask nearly ONE HUNDRED questions about GW. And the results there are FAR less scary and less of a consensus..

Okay, guy, if 95% of doctors you see tell you that you are going to die if you don't change your lifestyle... do you really quibble whether or not he's giving you six months to live or two years to live?

Or do you say, "Holy, shit, Doc, I need to change my lifestyle!"

The problem with you deniers is that you don't want to change your lifestyle.. not that you understand the science or not.

 

[flacaltenn]

That's a mere legend. The only thing that 95% of climate scientists agree on is that the Earth is warming and CO2 emissions may be PART of that warming. It does not answer the more important questions of feedbacks, accelerations and the other conjectures of GW that make a mild contribution into a ******* apocalypse. Also does not address the "common wisdom and folklore" of seeing definite effects of GW TODAY -- by just looking at your window. The DEFINITIVE opinion poll of scientists for over 12 years running are the Bray and von Storch surveys, that ask nearly ONE HUNDRED questions about GW. And the results there are FAR less scary and less of a consensus..

Okay, guy, if 95% of doctors you see tell you that you are going to die if you don't change your lifestyle... do you really quibble whether or not he's giving you six months to live or two years to live?

Or do you say, "Holy, shit, Doc, I need to change my lifestyle!"

The problem with you deniers is that you don't want to change your lifestyle.. not that you understand the science or not.

You didn't read a word I said -- did ya?? To have a "consensus" -- you need to have a SPECIFIC question. And if that question is TRIVIAL --- so is the consensus. GW isn't JUST one question. It's at least 50 or 60 important scientific issues. So the only folks bleating about a 95% "consensus" are the idiots who don't know the issues attached to the GW theories.

Go back -- read the previous post and try again. I'd suggest DISCUSSING it -- rather than demagoguing it. Like asking what the OTHER important GW questions might be.

 

[Crick]

The question is simple and examinging it at that level is not demogoguery. Do you believe that the world is getting warmer and that the primary cause of that warming is human GHG emissions? Greater than 97% of the world's publishing climate scientists say yes to that question. Like it or not, that puts you and all your buddies here out of business. AGW is settled science.

 

[ding]

The question is simple and examinging it at that level is not demogoguery. Do you believe that the world is getting warmer and that the primary cause of that warming is human GHG emissions? Greater than 97% of the world's publishing climate scientists say yes to that question. Like it or not, that puts you and all your buddies here out of business. AGW is settled science.

Settled my ass.

 

[flacaltenn]

The question is simple and examinging it at that level is not demogoguery. Do you believe that the world is getting warmer and that the primary cause of that warming is human GHG emissions? Greater than 97% of the world's publishing climate scientists say yes to that question. Like it or not, that puts you and all your buddies here out of business. AGW is settled science.

Not in the conclusions of the series of Bray and von Storch polls. At least not with the wording "primary cause"..

And even if it was -- still doesn't answer the questions that policy makers NEED. Which is "how bad will it get"? Or "are we seeing it today"?

I sign on to the premise that "the world is getting warmer and some of that warming is due to emissions of GH gases". So am I NOT a denier? Am I baptized into the congregation now?

 

[Olde Europe]

Settled my ass.

These denialings are oh-so very smart. They even have piccies to show - no source, sadly - probably from some denialing blog to cater to even more denialings. If that doesn't prove - prove! - the hoaxterism of the climate hoax...

... they even resort to some internet meme generator piccies to show Al Gore for the non-scientific goof he sure is. As a welcome side-effect this also demonstrates, conclusively, that all "liberal news" are fake. And if that still doesn't suffice...

... they decry the consensus on AGW, including the "A" part, as trivial - no, make that "TRIVIAL" - because what could be more trivial than the earth's warming and the humans' part in it? There's even an eight-year old online poll with an 18% response rate destroying the "consensus" - a poll that had none of the respondents denying the warming, and next to no one (1.35%) denying the human impact.

Did I mention these denialings are smart? Very much so.

 

[ding]

Settled my ass.

These denialings are oh-so very smart. They even have piccies to show - no source, sadly - probably from some denialing blog to cater to even more denialings. If that doesn't prove - prove! - the hoaxterism of the climate hoax...

... they even resort to some internet meme generator piccies to show Al Gore for the non-scientific goof he sure is. As a welcome side-effect this also demonstrates, conclusively, that all "liberal news" are fake. And if that still doesn't suffice...

... they decry the consensus on AGW, including the "A" part, as trivial - no, make that "TRIVIAL" - because what could be more trivial than the earth's warming and the humans' part in it? There's even an eight-year old online poll with an 18% response rate destroying the "consensus" - a poll that had none of the respondents denying the warming, and next to no one (1.35%) denying the human impact.

Did I mention these denialings are smart? Very much so.

From NASA, lol

 

[Olde Europe]

From NASA, lol

Nice giggle. But how about a link?

 

[SSDD]

Okay, guy, if 95% of doctors you see tell you that you are going to die if you don't change your lifestyle... do you really quibble whether or not he's giving you six months to live or two years to live?

Or do you say, "Holy, shit, Doc, I need to change my lifestyle!"

The problem with you deniers is that you don't want to change your lifestyle.. not that you understand the science or not.

My doctor has been telling me for at least a decade that he wants to start me on statin drugs for my cholesterol...and had I shopped around, I am sure that at least 95% off the doctors I talked to would have agreed with him...I, however, kept pointing out that I had seen no clear evidence, and neither had he that high cholesterol had anything whatsoever to do with heart disease....

Recently the largest, longest study ever done came back stating that cholesterol had no clear connection to heart disease...now he would have willingly put me on a drug that I would probably have had to take for the rest of my life...based on no clear evidence whatsoever...as would most of the other doctors in the world...recently he apologized and said that he would not be recommending statin drugs to his patients.

Science is about evidence...and there isn't the first shred of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the claim that mankind's CO2 is altering the global climate....

There are any number of long held consensus views which are tumbling in recent years...salt and high blood pressure, eggs and cholesterol, low fat milk and weight maintenance....etc...etc..etc....

Consensus science when there is no actual evidence in support of the consensus means nothing more than all who are part of the consensus are too damed lazy to research, or to damned scared to buck the consensus.

 

[miketx]

That, that was fake news, right? Right?

What is fake is the quote. Gore did not say "will". He said "may well".

And I strongly suggest you do some more reading. You do not understand the concept of "fake news".

Poor Al Whore.. Sold himself to the dark side and not one of his predictions have come true...

That makes them believe in him even more. The more you claim BS, and the more you are proven wrong, the more liberals want you to lead them. Where to, I have no idea.

 

[80zephyr]

The current rate of change is not uncommon (different from) and not faster than that of the past changes... Your premise fails basic empirical evidence review..

we've never had temperatures increase as quickly as they are now... The fact you have to go back millions of years to find time periods when the poles had this little ice is evidence of that.

Hmmm.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100830094922.htm

Dramatic climate change of the past

By analysing the ice cores that are drilled through the more than three kilometer thick ice sheet in Greenland, scientists can obtain information about the temperature and climate going back around 140,000 years.

The most pronounced climate shifts besides the end of the ice age is a series of climate changes during the ice age where the temperature suddenly rose 10-15 degrees in less than 10 years. The climate change lasted perhaps 1000 years, then -- bang -- the temperature fell drastically and the climate changed again.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

Prove your assumption!

Make sure the graphing you use to show this is in the same spatial resolution as the yearly plots are today... I'll wait..

95% of Climate scientists believe it's human caused.

The problem here isn't proof, bud. You guys don't WANT to believe that it's human caused, Because that would require government action to reverse.

The problem with your argument is that it is a chicken little, hand waving, emotional response to what you believe rather than a well thought out thoroughly researched assessment of what you have been told.

What government action? Carbon credits? A tax? Just which of these actions will alleviate what you think ails the planet? Want to know what's really going on? If our leaders and our celebrities ever actually start walking the walk, then you can worry. Until then, this is a "new world order" idea.

Mark

Here, take a look at a temperature reconstruction from the Greenland ice, covering not millions of years, but just the past 10,000 years.

Guy you can show me all the bullshit charts you want... from whatever denier websites the the Oil Companies are funding... but again, 95% of climate scientists- guys who know what htey are talking about - say you're wrong.

 

[Olde Europe]

My doctor has been telling me for at least a decade that he wants to start me on statin drugs for my cholesterol...and had I shopped around, I am sure that at least 95% off the doctors I talked to would have agreed with him...I, however, kept pointing out that I had seen no clear evidence, and neither had he that high cholesterol had anything whatsoever to do with heart disease....

Recently the largest, longest study ever done came back stating that cholesterol had no clear connection to heart disease...now he would have willingly put me on a drug that I would probably have had to take for the rest of my life...based on no clear evidence whatsoever...as would most of the other doctors in the world...recently he apologized and said that he would not be recommending statin drugs to his patients.

For laughing out loud.

Yes, there's an out-of-the-mainsteam study claiming that cholesterol has nothing to do with heart disease. That does not in and of itself a reversal of science create, even though we may be seeing the beginnings of one. Be that as it may, it may well have been a wise decision to stay clear of statins.

However, your willful confusion of Big Pharma pushing statins - bamboozling regulators, and defrauding patients in order to help their bottom line - with "science" is just too funny for words. The other way round: We have all kinds of oily corporate interests pushing the "climate hoax" to help their bottom line, and they stand against science in the exact same way as Big Pharma did, pushing their profitable statin hoax. As we know, and in both cases, the profit seekers experienced no dearth of useful idiots peddling the faux science on behalf of their corporate overlords, gleefully so.

So yeah, you found a sore thumb sticking out, but while whacking away at it, you should by now have discovered it is your own.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Prove your assumption!

Make sure the graphing you use to show this is in the same spatial resolution as the yearly plots are today... I'll wait..

95% of Climate scientists believe it's human caused.

The problem here isn't proof, bud. You guys don't WANT to believe that it's human caused, Because that would require government action to reverse.

The problem with your argument is that it is a chicken little, hand waving, emotional response to what you believe rather than a well thought out thoroughly researched assessment of what you have been told.

What government action? Carbon credits? A tax? Just which of these actions will alleviate what you think ails the planet? Want to know what's really going on? If our leaders and our celebrities ever actually start walking the walk, then you can worry. Until then, this is a "new world order" idea.

Mark

Here, take a look at a temperature reconstruction from the Greenland ice, covering not millions of years, but just the past 10,000 years.

Guy you can show me all the bullshit charts you want... from whatever denier websites the the Oil Companies are funding... but again, 95% of climate scientists- guys who know what htey are talking about - say you're wrong.

You Really should learn how to use the "quote" function.. Adding your words to my post inside the quotes is not cool..

Guy you can show me all the bullshit charts you want... from whatever denier websites the the Oil Companies are funding... but again, 95% of climate scientists- guys who know what htey are talking about - say you're wrong.

I see the bull shit runs deep in you.... Evil oil lies and the 97% LIE lives in you... Both of which have been shown frauds and deceptions by your left wing fools..

 

[Billy_Bob]

My doctor has been telling me for at least a decade that he wants to start me on statin drugs for my cholesterol...and had I shopped around, I am sure that at least 95% off the doctors I talked to would have agreed with him...I, however, kept pointing out that I had seen no clear evidence, and neither had he that high cholesterol had anything whatsoever to do with heart disease....

Recently the largest, longest study ever done came back stating that cholesterol had no clear connection to heart disease...now he would have willingly put me on a drug that I would probably have had to take for the rest of my life...based on no clear evidence whatsoever...as would most of the other doctors in the world...recently he apologized and said that he would not be recommending statin drugs to his patients.

For laughing out loud.

Yes, there's an out-of-the-mainsteam study claiming that cholesterol has nothing to do with heart disease. That does not in and of itself a reversal of science create, even though we may be seeing the beginnings of one. Be that as it may, it may well have been a wise decision to stay clear of statins.

However, your willful confusion of Big Pharma pushing statins - bamboozling regulators, and defrauding patients in order to help their bottom line - with "science" is just too funny for words. The other way round: We have all kinds of oily corporate interests pushing the "climate hoax" to help their bottom line, and they stand against science in the exact same way as Big Pharma did, pushing their profitable statin hoax. As we know, and in both cases, the profit seekers experienced no dearth of useful idiots peddling the faux science on behalf of their corporate overlords, gleefully so.

So yeah, you found a sore thumb sticking out, but while whacking away at it, you should by now have discovered it is your own.

lol

You guys are pathetic.. Appeal to authorities and yet the every people your telling us are correct were found WRONG... Many 'statin' type drugs have very bad side effects and are worse than the cholesterol you claim is bad...

 

[80zephyr]

Prove your assumption!

Make sure the graphing you use to show this is in the same spatial resolution as the yearly plots are today... I'll wait..

95% of Climate scientists believe it's human caused.

The problem here isn't proof, bud. You guys don't WANT to believe that it's human caused, Because that would require government action to reverse.

The problem with your argument is that it is a chicken little, hand waving, emotional response to what you believe rather than a well thought out thoroughly researched assessment of what you have been told.

What government action? Carbon credits? A tax? Just which of these actions will alleviate what you think ails the planet? Want to know what's really going on? If our leaders and our celebrities ever actually start walking the walk, then you can worry. Until then, this is a "new world order" idea.

Mark

Here, take a look at a temperature reconstruction from the Greenland ice, covering not millions of years, but just the past 10,000 years.

Guy you can show me all the bullshit charts you want... from whatever denier websites the the Oil Companies are funding... but again, 95% of climate scientists- guys who know what htey are talking about - say you're wrong.

You Really should learn how to use the "quote" function.. Adding your words to my post inside the quotes is not cool..

Guy you can show me all the bullshit charts you want... from whatever denier websites the the Oil Companies are funding... but again, 95% of climate scientists- guys who know what htey are talking about - say you're wrong.

I see the bull shit runs deep in you.... Evil oil lies and the 97% LIE lives in you... Both of which have been shown frauds and deceptions by your left wing fools..

It looks like I inadvertently placed my response inside your text. Sorry.

Mark

 

[ding]

From NASA, lol

Nice giggle. But how about a link?

Ask nicely. You might even throw in a pretty please for good measure.

 

[ding]

My doctor has been telling me for at least a decade that he wants to start me on statin drugs for my cholesterol...and had I shopped around, I am sure that at least 95% off the doctors I talked to would have agreed with him...I, however, kept pointing out that I had seen no clear evidence, and neither had he that high cholesterol had anything whatsoever to do with heart disease....

Recently the largest, longest study ever done came back stating that cholesterol had no clear connection to heart disease...now he would have willingly put me on a drug that I would probably have had to take for the rest of my life...based on no clear evidence whatsoever...as would most of the other doctors in the world...recently he apologized and said that he would not be recommending statin drugs to his patients.

For laughing out loud.

Yes, there's an out-of-the-mainsteam study claiming that cholesterol has nothing to do with heart disease. That does not in and of itself a reversal of science create, even though we may be seeing the beginnings of one. Be that as it may, it may well have been a wise decision to stay clear of statins.

However, your willful confusion of Big Pharma pushing statins - bamboozling regulators, and defrauding patients in order to help their bottom line - with "science" is just too funny for words. The other way round: We have all kinds of oily corporate interests pushing the "climate hoax" to help their bottom line, and they stand against science in the exact same way as Big Pharma did, pushing their profitable statin hoax. As we know, and in both cases, the profit seekers experienced no dearth of useful idiots peddling the faux science on behalf of their corporate overlords, gleefully so.

So yeah, you found a sore thumb sticking out, but while whacking away at it, you should by now have discovered it is your own.

There is no conspiracy here. The world we live in is considered an icehouse world. You think it is normal, but it is not. It is rare, possibly unique. Our icehouse world is characterized by bipolar glaciation and high latitudinal thermal gradients. No other instance of bipolar glaciation is known through the geologic record. For the last 400,000 years we have been experiencing glacial-interglacial cycles. Interglacial cycles have low latitude thermal gradients. We are presently in an interglacial cycle. Due to our landmass distribution which isolates the poles from warm marine currents, warming will occur more in the northern hemisphere than it will in the southern hemisphere. Which is exactly what we are seeing now. It is all natural and will continue to happen as we are at least 1.4C to 2.4C below the peak temperatures of three of the four past interglacials. Now you know.