Same type of hysteria, just a different decade

konradv

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
27,900
Reaction score
4,080
Points
280
Location
Baltimore
If CO2 keeps going up, how can we expect anything but warming? If people are strident, maybe it's because people like you don't listen. The logic is simple. More GH gases, more trapped infra-red radiation. More trapped radiation, more heat. Get it? The other stuff the deniers talk about is mere distraction from the simple scientific logic that they can't refute and, therefore, had to take the controversy to the political arena.
 
OP
J

jeffrockit

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2008
Messages
1,341
Reaction score
165
Points
48
If CO2 keeps going up, how can we expect anything but warming? If people are strident, maybe it's because people like you don't listen. The logic is simple. More GH gases, more trapped infra-red radiation. More trapped radiation, more heat. Get it? The other stuff the deniers talk about is mere distraction from the simple scientific logic that they can't refute and, therefore, had to take the controversy to the political arena.
Yeah we should have listened to the "experts" in 1970. According to some, we would not have breathable air by 1985. How much false data do we need to uncover before people like you realize it is nothing more than a giant wealth redistribution scheme. You can't argue with the facts that data was falsified in order to push the agenda. Don't know about you but that proves to me it is nothing more than a social engineering program but you go ahead and keep following the lies. If anyone has politicized this debate it is Al Gore and his brain dead followers.
 

AllieBaba

Rookie
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Messages
33,778
Reaction score
3,909
Points
0
If CO2 keeps going up, how can we expect anything but warming? If people are strident, maybe it's because people like you don't listen. The logic is simple. More GH gases, more trapped infra-red radiation. More trapped radiation, more heat. Get it? The other stuff the deniers talk about is mere distraction from the simple scientific logic that they can't refute and, therefore, had to take the controversy to the political arena.

I have heard from NASA weather people that if CO2 was truly going up, we'd have global cooling, not warming. And global cooling is much, much more deadly than warming.
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,352
Reaction score
7,232
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
If CO2 keeps going up, how can we expect anything but warming? If people are strident, maybe it's because people like you don't listen. The logic is simple. More GH gases, more trapped infra-red radiation. More trapped radiation, more heat. Get it? The other stuff the deniers talk about is mere distraction from the simple scientific logic that they can't refute and, therefore, had to take the controversy to the political arena.

I have heard from NASA weather people that if CO2 was truly going up, we'd have global cooling, not warming. And global cooling is much, much more deadly than warming.
Really? Allie, are you that stupid? Yes, suppose you are:lol:

NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Oh Where Oh Where Does the CO2 Go?

No, Allie, not global cooling. There have been some speculation that the melt of Greenland would halt the thermohaline circulation and create a period like the Younger Dryas. However, we do not see that happening, and Europe and Eastern North America are warming just like the rest of the world.
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,352
Reaction score
7,232
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
If CO2 keeps going up, how can we expect anything but warming? If people are strident, maybe it's because people like you don't listen. The logic is simple. More GH gases, more trapped infra-red radiation. More trapped radiation, more heat. Get it? The other stuff the deniers talk about is mere distraction from the simple scientific logic that they can't refute and, therefore, had to take the controversy to the political arena.
Yeah we should have listened to the "experts" in 1970. According to some, we would not have breathable air by 1985. How much false data do we need to uncover before people like you realize it is nothing more than a giant wealth redistribution scheme. You can't argue with the facts that data was falsified in order to push the agenda. Don't know about you but that proves to me it is nothing more than a social engineering program but you go ahead and keep following the lies. If anyone has politicized this debate it is Al Gore and his brain dead followers.
Jeffy, boy, why don't you post your sources? Because, of course, this all just idiocy that you pull out of your ass.

Real data from real scientists;

NASA - Global Warming

NOAA Paleoclimatology Program - Perspective on Global Warming
 

konradv

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
27,900
Reaction score
4,080
Points
280
Location
Baltimore
I have heard from NASA weather people that if CO2 was truly going up, we'd have global cooling, not warming. And global cooling is much, much more deadly than warming.
-------------------------------

How so? If CO2 traps radiation(energy), how does that not lead to an increase in the total energy(heat) of the planet? Sounds like either someone's been pulling your leg or we need to weed out the people at NASA that don't actually understand the science. How'd someone like that get their job anyway? My feeeling is that these "weather people" don't exist.
 
OP
J

jeffrockit

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2008
Messages
1,341
Reaction score
165
Points
48
If CO2 keeps going up, how can we expect anything but warming? If people are strident, maybe it's because people like you don't listen. The logic is simple. More GH gases, more trapped infra-red radiation. More trapped radiation, more heat. Get it? The other stuff the deniers talk about is mere distraction from the simple scientific logic that they can't refute and, therefore, had to take the controversy to the political arena.
Yeah we should have listened to the "experts" in 1970. According to some, we would not have breathable air by 1985. How much false data do we need to uncover before people like you realize it is nothing more than a giant wealth redistribution scheme. You can't argue with the facts that data was falsified in order to push the agenda. Don't know about you but that proves to me it is nothing more than a social engineering program but you go ahead and keep following the lies. If anyone has politicized this debate it is Al Gore and his brain dead followers.
Jeffy, boy, why don't you post your sources? Because, of course, this all just idiocy that you pull out of your ass.

Real data from real scientists;

NASA - Global Warming

NOAA Paleoclimatology Program - Perspective on Global Warming
Rocksy boy, why don't you read the 1st thing I posted. The link is there, you just don't like what is in it. Face it, the "experts" were proven wrong in 1970 as they will be proven wrong now. I just hope it doesn't take 40 years.
I will humor you though since you are too lazy to actually read. The following are from 1970:

“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“We have about five more years at the outside to do something.”
• Kenneth Watt, ecologist

“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”
• Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University

“Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”
• Life Magazine, January 1970

“By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

AND THE BEST ONE for a nut job warmer such as yourself

“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist
 

gslack

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2010
Messages
4,527
Reaction score
351
Points
48
If CO2 keeps going up, how can we expect anything but warming? If people are strident, maybe it's because people like you don't listen. The logic is simple. More GH gases, more trapped infra-red radiation. More trapped radiation, more heat. Get it? The other stuff the deniers talk about is mere distraction from the simple scientific logic that they can't refute and, therefore, had to take the controversy to the political arena.
No dumazz its because people like you blindly follow that which you do not understand... you're a kid we know this and therefore only guilty of being an idiotic child... But the adults like you? THey will get exactly what they work for, a tax on life and an ever more ignorant series of offspring all doing as they are told by their "betters".... THanks for perpetuating ignorance and slavery twerp..... Appreciate that....
 

gslack

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2010
Messages
4,527
Reaction score
351
Points
48
Yeah we should have listened to the "experts" in 1970. According to some, we would not have breathable air by 1985. How much false data do we need to uncover before people like you realize it is nothing more than a giant wealth redistribution scheme. You can't argue with the facts that data was falsified in order to push the agenda. Don't know about you but that proves to me it is nothing more than a social engineering program but you go ahead and keep following the lies. If anyone has politicized this debate it is Al Gore and his brain dead followers.
Jeffy, boy, why don't you post your sources? Because, of course, this all just idiocy that you pull out of your ass.

Real data from real scientists;

NASA - Global Warming

NOAA Paleoclimatology Program - Perspective on Global Warming
Rocksy boy, why don't you read the 1st thing I posted. The link is there, you just don't like what is in it. Face it, the "experts" were proven wrong in 1970 as they will be proven wrong now. I just hope it doesn't take 40 years.
I will humor you though since you are too lazy to actually read. The following are from 1970:

“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“We have about five more years at the outside to do something.”
• Kenneth Watt, ecologist

“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”
• Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University

“Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”
• Life Magazine, January 1970

“By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

AND THE BEST ONE for a nut job warmer such as yourself

“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist
Wow and none of it from any Climatologists....... nice......:lol::lol::lol:

hey my mechanic believes in AGW too, want me to quote him for you to use later? :lol::lol:
 
OP
J

jeffrockit

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2008
Messages
1,341
Reaction score
165
Points
48
Jeffy, boy, why don't you post your sources? Because, of course, this all just idiocy that you pull out of your ass.

Real data from real scientists;

NASA - Global Warming

NOAA Paleoclimatology Program - Perspective on Global Warming
Rocksy boy, why don't you read the 1st thing I posted. The link is there, you just don't like what is in it. Face it, the "experts" were proven wrong in 1970 as they will be proven wrong now. I just hope it doesn't take 40 years.
I will humor you though since you are too lazy to actually read. The following are from 1970:

“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“We have about five more years at the outside to do something.”
• Kenneth Watt, ecologist

“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”
• Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University

“Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”
• Life Magazine, January 1970

“By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

AND THE BEST ONE for a nut job warmer such as yourself

“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist
Wow and none of it from any Climatologists....... nice......:lol::lol::lol:

hey my mechanic believes in AGW too, want me to quote him for you to use later? :lol::lol:
There may be, I posted the link but am not going to post every single quote. Thats what the link is for. The point is, these quotes are very similar to the gloom and doom quotes out today. Climate changes, everyone believes that, it's just those spouting off about man causes were just as wrong 40 years ago as they are today.
The other point is that these were quotes from biologist, ecologists and etc...ie scientists. I did not see any quotes from mechanics. What's your point, if the quotes don't come from
climatologists, they are ok to br wrong:cuckoo:
 

gslack

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2010
Messages
4,527
Reaction score
351
Points
48
Rocksy boy, why don't you read the 1st thing I posted. The link is there, you just don't like what is in it. Face it, the "experts" were proven wrong in 1970 as they will be proven wrong now. I just hope it doesn't take 40 years.
I will humor you though since you are too lazy to actually read. The following are from 1970:

“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“We have about five more years at the outside to do something.”
• Kenneth Watt, ecologist

“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”
• Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University

“Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”
• Life Magazine, January 1970

“By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

AND THE BEST ONE for a nut job warmer such as yourself

“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist
Wow and none of it from any Climatologists....... nice......:lol::lol::lol:

hey my mechanic believes in AGW too, want me to quote him for you to use later? :lol::lol:
There may be, I posted the link but am not going to post every single quote. Thats what the link is for. The point is, these quotes are very similar to the gloom and doom quotes out today. Climate changes, everyone believes that, it's just those spouting off about man causes were just as wrong 40 years ago as they are today.
The other point is that these were quotes from biologist, ecologists and etc...ie scientists. I did not see any quotes from mechanics. What's your point, if the quotes don't come from
climatologists, they are ok to br wrong:cuckoo:
My point was, when we debate AGW the believers tell us this or that person or scientist is not a climatologist, even if the person is in a related field. Now all those quotes and not one from a climatologist in the ones you posted. So I pointed out the same thing the believers point out to us in similar situations... And the mechanic part was a bit of sarcasm...

Sorry if it came out wrong reading it now I see how it may have seemed like an attack on your post.... it was meant to be sarcasm I just was to quick with it.... my bad sorry bout that..
 
Last edited:

xsited1

Agent P
Joined
Sep 15, 2008
Messages
17,746
Reaction score
5,777
Points
198
Location
Little Rock, AR
40 years ago, these were some of the quotes of "The Sky Is Falling" by the same types, hysterical about 'Climate Change". Seems as though they missed the mark then as they have/will now. If we can't learn from history, what good is it?

Earth Day predictions of 1970. The reason you shouldn’t believe Earth Day predictions of 2009. | Conservative News from IHateTheMedia.com
But now we've got Obama destroying oil rigs in the gulf, so the predictions might come true this time.
 
OP
J

jeffrockit

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2008
Messages
1,341
Reaction score
165
Points
48
Wow and none of it from any Climatologists....... nice......:lol::lol::lol:

hey my mechanic believes in AGW too, want me to quote him for you to use later? :lol::lol:
There may be, I posted the link but am not going to post every single quote. Thats what the link is for. The point is, these quotes are very similar to the gloom and doom quotes out today. Climate changes, everyone believes that, it's just those spouting off about man causes were just as wrong 40 years ago as they are today.
The other point is that these were quotes from biologist, ecologists and etc...ie scientists. I did not see any quotes from mechanics. What's your point, if the quotes don't come from
climatologists, they are ok to br wrong:cuckoo:
My point was, when we debate AGW the believers tell us this or that person or scientist is not a climatologist, even if the person is in a related field. Now all those quotes and not one from a climatologist in the ones you posted. So I pointed out the same thing the believers point out to us in similar situations... And the mechanic part was a bit of sarcasm...

Sorry if it came out wrong reading it now I see how it may have seemed like an attack on your post.... it was meant to be sarcasm I just was to quick with it.... my bad sorry bout that..
No problem...thanks for the clarification.
 
R

rdean

Guest
40 years ago, these were some of the quotes of "The Sky Is Falling" by the same types, hysterical about 'Climate Change". Seems as though they missed the mark then as they have/will now. If we can't learn from history, what good is it?

Earth Day predictions of 1970. The reason you shouldn’t believe Earth Day predictions of 2009. | Conservative News from IHateTheMedia.com
I tend to believe scientists. So far, they have been right about "space, computers, disease, medicine, agriculture, biology, botany, physiology and many other things".

What have the "White Wing" been right about? Noah's Ark? Garden of Eden? Adam's rib?

 

gslack

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2010
Messages
4,527
Reaction score
351
Points
48
40 years ago, these were some of the quotes of "The Sky Is Falling" by the same types, hysterical about 'Climate Change". Seems as though they missed the mark then as they have/will now. If we can't learn from history, what good is it?

Earth Day predictions of 1970. The reason you shouldn’t believe Earth Day predictions of 2009. | Conservative News from IHateTheMedia.com
I tend to believe scientists. So far, they have been right about "space, computers, disease, medicine, agriculture, biology, botany, physiology and many other things".

What have the "White Wing" been right about? Noah's Ark? Garden of Eden? Adam's rib?

Real scientists not agenda driven quacks.... And that is the difference....
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,352
Reaction score
7,232
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
So, our resident brainless troll states that 84% of scientists are agenda driven quacks.
 

Big Black Dog

Gold Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
23,365
Reaction score
7,912
Points
340
40 years ago, these were some of the quotes of "The Sky Is Falling" by the same types, hysterical about 'Climate Change". Seems as though they missed the mark then as they have/will now. If we can't learn from history, what good is it?

Earth Day predictions of 1970. The reason you shouldn’t believe Earth Day predictions of 2009. | Conservative News from IHateTheMedia.com
At the rate that liberals are rewriting history, I don't think looking back at history means very much anymore... History is being rewritten to promote whatever the popular idea of the day is or to fit the needs of extremeists. Little value put on the actual truth anymore.
 

gslack

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2010
Messages
4,527
Reaction score
351
Points
48
So, our resident brainless troll states that 84% of scientists are agenda driven quacks.
I know you are.... And from seeing the lies you post and the misleading way they put it, it would seem a fair number...

And a liar who posts from pro-agw sources alone, calls all other data wrong, lies about what his data says, lies about his sources, and lies about what the actual scientists say, calling anyone a troll is hilarious....:lol::lol:
 

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
66,534
Reaction score
19,157
Points
2,180
Location
Nevada
d,

According to Old Fraud there is a 20 to 30 year delay before the effects of the CO2 become apparent in the atmosphere. Well according to my calculations the AGW movement has been telling us the sky is falling for 25 years now. CO2 is still increasing and the global temperature is dropping.

How prey tell do you explain that?

You've had your 20 years and still ZERO evidence to support your contention.



If CO2 keeps going up, how can we expect anything but warming? If people are strident, maybe it's because people like you don't listen. The logic is simple. More GH gases, more trapped infra-red radiation. More trapped radiation, more heat. Get it? The other stuff the deniers talk about is mere distraction from the simple scientific logic that they can't refute and, therefore, had to take the controversy to the political arena.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top