The Midwest Blizzard Superstorm, Al Gore's "Global Winter 3.0" ? Caused By Warming ?

[CrusaderFrank]

Been done. Many times this Earth has experianced rapid rises in the GHGs, CO2 and CH4. And that is what happened, rapid warming and an ocean that increased in acidity enough to kill many of the species there.

NOAA Paleoclimatology Program - Perspective on Abrupt climate Change

Do the words "repeatable experiment" mean anything at all to you?

Oh now we add "Abrupt Climate change" to the mix

Repeatable experiment: Frank posting and hoping it makes sense this time!

Adrupt Climate Change: When Frank comes home after a night out with the boys.

I still don't see any science in anything you posted, Decline Hider

 

[daveman]

Wrong.

The warmist true believers obviously started it all. The whole thing is nothing but a huge con designed to delude the public into voting for massive tax increases and turning over massive control over the economy to the federal government. All the skeptics did is reveal the truth.

It has always been nothing but politics from the start. In fact, it's worse than politics. It's just a flat out lie.

What's obvious about who started it? How could this have started out political? It didn't become political until the opponents started crying that cleaning things up would cost money. Then they started making any disagreements look like someone was lying. It's just hypocritical to think that the victims of this attack were the ones that started it. It's just more of the BIG LIE, that would have us believe that scientists were at the bottom of this, when REAL monied interests were bankrolling the opposition. "Follow the money", is a common theme here. I say it works both ways and we need to look more carefully at those with the deep pockets. They're the ones trying to protect their own pocketbooks, the earth be damned, NOT scientists.

Yes, let's follow the money.

Well, in situations like this... I like to follow the money. Who has the most to lose if Man Made Climate Change is the reality?

Those of you on the right... Use your critical thinking skills. Your side has blamed "libruls" and Obama for a hell of a lot less damning evidence. Oh that's right... You only have Critical thinking skills when it comes to "gubmint".

Yeah, let's follow the money, shall we?

Remarks at opening of Climate Vulnerable Forum

In Durban I expect that countries will make the clarification on the future of the Kyoto Protocol. They have to launch the Green Climate Fund and they have to have a clarification on the short term and longer term climate change financing, as President Figueres has just said. There was a 30 billion dollar promise in Copenhagen. We have identified only 27 billion dollars. We have to make it happen and we have to have clear understanding and agreement on how the developed world will generate 100 billion dollars per year by 2020. That was a promise made in Copenhagen three years ago.​

Last year more than $28 billion was traded worldwide in carbon credits*-*Carbon Currency Foundation - English

NASA Scientist Accused Of Using Celeb Status Among Environmental Groups To Enrich Himself | Fox News

Funny how you cultists never seem to want to follow that money, innit?

Konrad, you coward, why are you pretending this post doesn't exist?

Oh, yeah, I answered my own question. Kerry on.

 

[konradv]

I don't see how you can say that being a newb to the topic. The fact that this is in 'Politics' is unusual and I don't feel making thre conclusion you did has any validity. If it's a political question, it's because the skeptics/deniers have been saying things like "Obviously Global Warming alarmism is a far Left Socialist political movement" since Day 1 and then hypocritically saying anyone challenging those statements has a political agenda.

Your definition of "making it political" means someone dared to question the abracadabra spewing from the warmist cult. The fact that no one is disputing something doesn't mean it isn't "political." When you use a claim to push an agenda, then it's political. The warmist cult members have been using the excuse of global warming to push socialism and huge tax increases on the developed countries from the start. The fact is undeniable.

My definition of "making it political" involves when you and others SAY it's political. Until then, it wasn't.

 

[konradv]

What's obvious about who started it? How could this have started out political? It didn't become political until the opponents started crying that cleaning things up would cost money. Then they started making any disagreements look like someone was lying. It's just hypocritical to think that the victims of this attack were the ones that started it. It's just more of the BIG LIE, that would have us believe that scientists were at the bottom of this, when REAL monied interests were bankrolling the opposition. "Follow the money", is a common theme here. I say it works both ways and we need to look more carefully at those with the deep pockets. They're the ones trying to protect their own pocketbooks, the earth be damned, NOT scientists.

Yes, let's follow the money.

Yeah, let's follow the money, shall we?

Remarks at opening of Climate Vulnerable Forum

In Durban I expect that countries will make the clarification on the future of the Kyoto Protocol. They have to launch the Green Climate Fund and they have to have a clarification on the short term and longer term climate change financing, as President Figueres has just said. There was a 30 billion dollar promise in Copenhagen. We have identified only 27 billion dollars. We have to make it happen and we have to have clear understanding and agreement on how the developed world will generate 100 billion dollars per year by 2020. That was a promise made in Copenhagen three years ago.​

Last year more than $28 billion was traded worldwide in carbon credits*-*Carbon Currency Foundation - English

NASA Scientist Accused Of Using Celeb Status Among Environmental Groups To Enrich Himself | Fox News

Funny how you cultists never seem to want to follow that money, innit?

Konrad, you coward, why are you pretending this post doesn't exist?

Oh, yeah, I answered my own question. Kerry on.

Cowards only put up one side of the story. Who's bankrolling the skeptics/deniers?

 

[daveman]

Yes, let's follow the money.

​

Konrad, you coward, why are you pretending this post doesn't exist?

Oh, yeah, I answered my own question. Kerry on.

Cowards only put up one side of the story. Who's bankrolling the skeptics/deniers?

Cowards put up only one side of the story?

Oh, then you can link for me where you posted where the AGW crowd is getting their money, then, right?

Oh, wait. You can't because you never have.

By your own ludicrous definition (if leftists couldn't redefine words, they'd never have an argument at all), you're a coward.

 

[daveman]

I don't see how you can say that being a newb to the topic. The fact that this is in 'Politics' is unusual and I don't feel making thre conclusion you did has any validity. If it's a political question, it's because the skeptics/deniers have been saying things like "Obviously Global Warming alarmism is a far Left Socialist political movement" since Day 1 and then hypocritically saying anyone challenging those statements has a political agenda.

Your definition of "making it political" means someone dared to question the abracadabra spewing from the warmist cult. The fact that no one is disputing something doesn't mean it isn't "political." When you use a claim to push an agenda, then it's political. The warmist cult members have been using the excuse of global warming to push socialism and huge tax increases on the developed countries from the start. The fact is undeniable.

My definition of "making it political" involves when you and others SAY it's political. Until then, it wasn't.

Your definition is, as usual, wrong.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yes, let's follow the money.

​

Konrad, you coward, why are you pretending this post doesn't exist?

Oh, yeah, I answered my own question. Kerry on.

Cowards only put up one side of the story. Who's bankrolling the skeptics/deniers?

From the team that claims science is done by consensus, that ******* hilarious!

 

[konradv]

Konrad, you coward, why are you pretending this post doesn't exist?

Oh, yeah, I answered my own question. Kerry on.

Cowards only put up one side of the story. Who's bankrolling the skeptics/deniers?

Cowards put up only one side of the story?

Oh, then you can link for me where you posted where the AGW crowd is getting their money, then, right?

Oh, wait. You can't because you never have.

By your own ludicrous definition (if leftists couldn't redefine words, they'd never have an argument at all), you're a coward.

Quit your whining. You're the ones that only believe in natural cycles when it serves your purpose, talk about snowstorms when it's temps we're concerned with, ignore centuries old data on how GHGs work, call everyone socialists and then say the proponents are being poltical, etc., etc., etc. Maybe cowardice isn't the word for your position, "intellectual dishonesty" works better. Everyone knows where the academics' money comes from, that's a matter of public record. Care to be "intellectually honest" about where the other side gets theirs and how much they're getting in comparison, taking into consideration that most of the scientists' money goes to doing experiments, while the other side just stuffs the money in their pockets?!?!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Been done. Many times this Earth has experianced rapid rises in the GHGs, CO2 and CH4. And that is what happened, rapid warming and an ocean that increased in acidity enough to kill many of the species there.

NOAA Paleoclimatology Program - Perspective on Abrupt climate Change

That's not an experiment, that's an observation. Surely, you know the difference?

 

[paulitician]

Seriously,i need to get me some of that Global Warming. I'm freezin my ase off. So where ya at dawg?

 

[skookerasbil]

Where's the CO2 coming from, if not for man? Wy can't you deal with that question?

LOL.......s0n..........its 2011. You might as well be a naked man standing in the middle of the Siberian tundra screaming, "FIRE!!". Thats how tuned in the public is to the question of "Where is CO2 coming from?"

All the more reason to keep talking about it, right? Are you saying minorities should just shut up? The fact that many don't care, doesn't mean squat with regard to the central questions.

Oh they can speak all they want..........and God Bless them!! But its nothing more than an exercise in slight neuro-stimulation.......really, a hobby would be an apt description. Perhaps......"scientific deliberation" if one wants to take it to an extreme description. But in the real world, its nothing more than that........and truth be told, the legions of the hopelessly duped who ride this train wreck are no different than the follwers of Jim Jones back in the 1980's.....or the Moonies back in the 70's!!!!! These people all figured they were going to make a big splash in the worlds concsiousness levels but became a footnote that barely makes it into the Wikkipedia archives!! Like the alarmist nutters, they were going to be the people who would stand there in sub-freezing temperatures and you wouldnt see their breath when they exhaled!!

IDK......I could never understand the thinking of people who were gung-ho on getting behind causes that are ultimately doomed. And weve all known them in life........like the dick you knew in the schoolyard who was determined to prove he could stick his tongue on a light pole in 10 degree weather and prove it wouldnt stick!! Hey.........call me boring, but lets face it.......many of the alarmist k00ks fall into the category of oddball social invalids anyway. These are exactly the types that get behind frivilous causes...........or any cause.........as long as it is a bit eccentric. Like the 99%er assholes........another bunch of losers who will never, ever fit into the norms of society. God bless these people who dont mind being dicks and spending life on the fringes.......just as long as they dont cost me money!!! Every society has losers............. and those who embrace them!!

 

[bripat9643]

My definition of "making it political" involves when you and others SAY it's political. Until then, it wasn't.

So "political" has nothing to do with whether its actually political, only with when people say it is?

 

[bripat9643]

Cowards only put up one side of the story. Who's bankrolling the skeptics/deniers?

Who's bankrolling the warmist cult? Oh yeah . . . the taxpayers!

 

[konradv]

Cowards only put up one side of the story. Who's bankrolling the skeptics/deniers?

Who's bankrolling the warmist cult? Oh yeah . . . the taxpayers!

i.e. THE PEOPLE!!! Who are you shilling for?

 

[Old Rocks]

Been done. Many times this Earth has experianced rapid rises in the GHGs, CO2 and CH4. And that is what happened, rapid warming and an ocean that increased in acidity enough to kill many of the species there.

NOAA Paleoclimatology Program - Perspective on Abrupt climate Change

That's not an experiment, that's an observation. Surely, you know the difference?

Frankie boy, tell me, how do you do experiments on plate tectonics? Every heard of one being done? No, it is all observations. Yet Tectonic Theory is the accepted explanation of the geology we see today.

So, let's just throw it out the window because we have not done a plate tectonic experiment? LOL

The observations of past rapid climate changes in the paleo record are just as valid as any experiment. Darwing Natural Selection Theory was done without the knowledge of genetics, based purely on observations. And it has been validated and added to, creating the present Theory of Evolution. And the scientific consensus on that is near 100%, just as with AGW.

 

[Old Rocks]

Cowards only put up one side of the story. Who's bankrolling the skeptics/deniers?

Who's bankrolling the warmist cult? Oh yeah . . . the taxpayers!

Of course. And it is to our interest to do so. We need to understand the consequences of the changes in the atmosphere that we have created.

Because we are already in the consequences phase of the changes. More storms, with higher intensity per storm. Clathrate outgassing in the Arctic. Glaciers melting rapidly worldwide. Sea Level and Acidiification of the oceans increasing.

http://cstpr.colorado.edu/sparc/research/projects/extreme_events/munich_workshop/epstein.pdf

FAQs about ocean acidification : OCB-OA

The Moving Shoreline : Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Glaciers And Ice Caps To Dominate Sea Level Rise This Century, Says New Study

 

[bripat9643]

Cowards only put up one side of the story. Who's bankrolling the skeptics/deniers?

Who's bankrolling the warmist cult? Oh yeah . . . the taxpayers!

Of course. And it is to our interest to do so. We need to understand the consequences of the changes in the atmosphere that we have created.

It's not in our interest to fund propaganda and psuedo-science. The taxpayers pay the bills, but bureaucrats decide who gets the money, and only those "scientists" who produce the results that bureaucrats want get the money. If private money corrupts a scientist, then why doesn't government money corrupt equally well? Warmist cult members always run away when it comes to answering that question.

Because we are already in the consequences phase of the changes. More storms, with higher intensity per storm. Clathrate outgassing in the Arctic. Glaciers melting rapidly worldwide. Sea Level and Acidiification of the oceans increasing.

Too bad for your warmist delusions that the data shows storms have been decreasing in number and in intensity.

 

[bripat9643]

Frankie boy, tell me, how do you do experiments on plate tectonics? Every heard of one being done? No, it is all observations. Yet Tectonic Theory is the accepted explanation of the geology we see today.

So, let's just throw it out the window because we have not done a plate tectonic experiment? LOL

Wrong, turd. Movement of the continents can be measured. The age of the ocean floor can also be measured. Those measurements show that the farther you are from the Mid-Atlantic ridge, the older the ocean floor is. There is so much hard measurable data confirming the theory of plate tectonics that it is simply not a matter of debate.

The observations of past rapid climate changes in the paleo record are just as valid as any experiment.

The record of the paleo climate proves nothing about AGW.

Darwing Natural Selection Theory was done without the knowledge of genetics, based purely on observations. And it has been validated and added to, creating the present Theory of Evolution. And the scientific consensus on that is near 100%, just as with AGW.

Darwin's theory was validated using experiments and extensive verfiable data. Such does not exist to support the theory of global warming. We can study the way genes alter over the course of time. We have no such comparable data on human induced climate change.

 

[paulitician]

Also,Global Warming is not necessarily bad. Now pollution on the other hand? Stopping pollution is a very worthy cause to get behind. Global Warming will hardly be the end of us.

 

[konradv]

It's not in our interest to fund propaganda and psuedo-science. The taxpayers pay the bills, but bureaucrats decide who gets the money, and only those "scientists" who produce the results that bureaucrats want get the money. If private money corrupts a scientist, then why doesn't government money corrupt equally well? Warmist cult members always run away when it comes to answering that question.

Sorry, we've been "running away", but I assumed you understood how the money is distributed. Bureaucrats don't decide who gets it, their fellow working scientists do.

The "running away" charge works both ways. Why do the skeptics/deniers keep running away from revealing who's funding the other side, what they're doing for the money and how much is spent? The amount scientists on grants get, is a matter of public record and must be spent on experiments, reasonable salaries and some travel. Not so for the other side!!! There's no evidence they ever do a single experiment for their money. Must be nice to get as much or more than the someone else and only have to talk about how bad their data is without ever having to present any proof of one's own!