Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
cyclone intensity has risen noticeably over the past 20 years, and eight of the 10 most active years since 1950
I bet if we had good data going back a million years, we'd find there were some humdingers.
Here is your Messiah talking, you fucking AGW religious nut.
You are just as fucking unhinged as he is. All you Environmental Wackos are unhinged.
Al Gore gives 'unhinged' climate change speech at Davos forum
Former Vice President Al Gore gave an 'impassioned' and 'unhinged' speech about climate change while on stage at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.www.dailymail.co.uk
Former VP Al Gore gives 'unhinged' rant about environmental threats including 'rain bombs' and 'boiling oceans' during speech at World Economic Forum
- Former Vice President Al Gore gave an 'unhinged' speech about climate change
- Gore raised concerns about 'rain bombs' and oceans boiling during the speech
- The eco-warrior said humanity will be gravely impacted if changes aren't made
- Gore is in Davos, Switzerland for the World Economic Forum
- The former VP also voiced support for climate activist Greta Thunberg after her recent arrest in Germany for protesting a coal mine
We are all gonna die! Die I tell you!!!
All these things that these wackos have been telling us for the last 30 years have been lies and misrepresentations but yet there idiots like this Crick clown that just won't accept that he/she/it has been lied to.DEAR AL,
OCEANS are not boiling, canes are not breaking out
LIES are what you scream and shout
Greenland FROZE while North America THAWED
Your Co2 theory is just a tad FLAWED
All these things that these wackos have been telling us for the last 30 years have been lies and misrepresentations but yet there idiots like this Crick clown that just won't accept that he/she/it has been lied to.
I appreciate the fact that me having these mountains of evidence and the supporting opinions of thousands of scientists and you having nothing HAS to be really frustrating. But, there is a simple solution. You could all come to your senses.Here is your Messiah talking, you fucking AGW religious nut.
You are just as fucking unhinged as he is. All you Environmental Wackos are unhinged.
When were they established as lies?All these things that these wackos have been telling us for the last 30 years have been lies and misrepresentations but yet there idiots like this Crick clown that just won't accept that he/she/it has been lied to.
The moment they chose to ignore actual climate data like the previous interglacial period being 2C hotter than today with 26 ft higher seas than today and 120 ppm less atmospheric CO2 than today. And the planet cooling for 50 million years and transitioning from a greenhouse planet to an icehouse planet which destroys their argument that water vapor is a net positive feedback.When were they established as lies?
Most governments don't sponsor and fund any of it. So you are wrong.That would have to be all the governments in the world.
My comment was in response to a charge that the government was paying scientists to further an AGW conspiracy - that it was all lies. I was pointing out that it was many nations, not just the USMost governments don't sponsor and fund any of it. So you are wrong.
I appreciate the fact that me having these mountains of evidence and the supporting opinions of thousands of scientists and you having nothing HAS to be really frustrating. But, there is a simple solution. You could all come to your senses.
My comment was in response to a charge that the government was paying scientists to further an AGW conspiracy - that it was all lies. I was pointing out that it was many nations, not just the US
I don't buy it. The literature is far too consistent to simply be a funding bias. You are still accusing thousands of scientists of lying to get funded and published and somehow managing to make it all tell s a consistent story. I hope you're smarter than that Todd.There is no conspiracy.
They only fund studies on the doomer side of the issue.
Skeptics get canceled and get no funding.
The drive to present a single “scientific consensus” on issues has given the IPCC epistemic authority in matters of climate policy” (Beck et al. 2014). Many researchers have noted that this has been achieved by suppressing dissenting views on any issues where there is still scientific disagreement (Beck et al. 2014; Hoppe & Rodder 2019 ¨ ; van der Sluijs et al. 2010; Curry & Webster 2011; Sarewitz 2011; Hulme 2013). As a result, an accurate knowledge of those issues where there is ongoing scientific dissensus (and why) is often missing from the IPCC reports. This is concerning for policy makers relying on the IPCC reports because, as van der Sluijs et al. (2010) note, “The consensus approach deprives policy makers of a full view of the plurality of scientific opinions within and between the various scientific disciplines that study the climate problem” (van der Sluijs et al. 2010). This suppression of open-minded scientific inquiry is hindering scientific progress into improving our understanding of these challenging issues.I don't buy it. The literature is far too consistent to simply be a funding bias. You are still accusing thousands of scientists of lying to get funded and published and somehow managing to make it all tell s a consistent story. I hope you're smarter than that Todd.
I don't buy it. The literature is far too consistent to simply be a funding bias. You are still accusing thousands of scientists of lying to get funded and published and somehow managing to make it all tell s a consistent story. I hope you're smarter than that Todd.
Why do you throw "doomsday" in there? There is very, very, very little "doomsday" in scholarly studies. What you see is mainstream media alarmism trying to sell copy and I'm quite certain you know that.You are still accusing thousands of scientists of lying to get funded and published
I'm sure lots of the scientists getting the funds to support doomsday AGW studies believe it.
Not getting published is not censorship and I haven't the faintest idea what you mean by canceled. There are a number of scientists on your side of this argument still gainfully employed: Spencer, Christy, Soon, Bailunas, Lomborg, Happer and Legates (for god's sake). And, of course, a significant number of your supporters are retired. How do you know that their studies aren't being rejected for bad science? The only opinion you folks ever bring up are those of the folks who got rejected. And all of the names I've listed HAVE been published in several different journals.The ones who don't believe it aren't getting funded. Are getting censored and canceled.
I disagree. You know I support nuclear power, but TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima have all clearly illustrated that it needs to be done VERY, VERY carefully. The potential for harm from a nuclear plant is many orders of magnitude greater than the potential of a wind farm or a solar PV facility.Governments are wasting trillions building wind and solar instead of nuclear.
Where have you seen that take place?Banning nat gas hookups for new construction.
Phased out. Just like we phased out leaded gasoline. They are harmful. Governments are acting in the common interest as is their obligation.Banning ICE cars.
It was actually a scientific study that showed that result - and I believe that it was making children with asthma worse, but I could be wrong - and it has no ties to global warming.Floating the claim that nat gas stoves are giving kids asthma.
Because that wouldn't silence them and you've created another unlikely group. This charge now requires all the publishers and the peer reviewers (who are often selected by authors) to all be cooperating in your conspiracy.Why is it so difficult to believe that they'd only fund one side of the issue?
Why do you throw "doomsday" in there? There is very, very, very little "doomsday" in scholarly studies. What you see is mainstream media alarmism trying to sell copy and I'm quite certain you know that.
Not getting published is not censorship and I haven't the faintest idea what you mean by canceled. There are a number of scientists on your side of this argument still gainfully employed: Spencer, Christy, Soon, Bailunas, Lomborg, Happer and Legates (for god's sake). And, of course, a significant number of your supporters are retired. How do you know that their studies aren't being rejected for bad science? The only opinion you folks ever bring up are those of the folks who got rejected. And all of the names I've listed HAVE been published in several different journals.
I disagree. You know I support nuclear power, but TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima have all clearly illustrated that it needs to be done VERY, VERY carefully. The potential for harm from a nuclear plant is many orders of magnitude greater than the potential of a wind farm or a solar PV facility.
Where have you seen that take place?
Phased out. Just like we phased out leaded gasoline. They are harmful. Governments are acting in the common interest as is their obligation.
It was actually a scientific study that showed that result - and I believe that it was making children with asthma worse, but I could be wrong - and it has no ties to global warming.
Because that wouldn't silence them and you've created another unlikely group. This charge now requires all the publishers and the peer reviewers (who are often selected by authors) to all be cooperating in your conspiracy.
Todd, you have not been one to bring up bad science in an attempt to refute AGW. I see you're concerned about the cost and you're as suspicious of politicians as the next fellow. But its long past time to accept that global warming is taking place, that it is of a magnitude to be threatening and that its primary cause is human CO2 emissions. These points are simply irrefutable.
www.cnbc.com
The attempt was to throw a little "unprecedented" back in to the mix.Why do you throw "doomsday" in there?
I'm feeling like a hockey stick today.
The fastest rate in the last million years (or was it 170,000 years?)
sounds a little doomsday to me.
People don't have a right to be published. If you think they are not being treated fairly or objectively, you need a little more evidence than we've seen so far. The Wikipedia article I brought up for Christopher Landsea told how a study of his in which he claimed that increased temperatures would decrease the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere was rejected by four peer reviewers, two of which Landsea himself had selected.Not getting published is not censorship
Of course not. Neither is not being funded. Or not being hired.
The trans mob? Look what conservative Americans are trying to do for having the unmitigated gall to defeat Donald Trump in the general election. Can I call them a mob?and I haven't the faintest idea what you mean by canceled
It's when you say something that doesn't agree with the current liberal mantra
and the howling mob tries to destroy your life. Check out what the trans mob
is trying to do to J.K. Rowling.
But you offer nothing to refute it.Where have you seen that take place?
Similar policies have been debated across the country. A few dozen cities, including San Francisco, Berkeley and San Jose in California; Cambridge, Mass.; and Seattle, have moved to ban natural gas hook ups in some new buildings as a way to combat climate change.
New York City is banning natural gas hookups for new buildings to fight climate change
The measure will go into effect at the end of 2023 for some buildings under seven stories and in 2027 for taller buildings.
Phased out. Just like we phased out leaded gasoline. They are harmful. Governments are acting in the common interest as is their obligation.
ICE cars are harmful like leaded gasoline? That's funny!!
Reducing fuel consumption, GHG emissions and pollution.What is the common interest in the extra deaths caused by higher CAFE standards?
I don't think so. So another point for which you lack a refutationIt was actually a scientific study that showed that result -
Was it by the same guys who whined about coconut oil in movie popcorn?
The universe is a complex place. Everything goes on in there.and I believe that it was making children with asthma worse, but I could be wrong - and it has no ties to global warming.
If it weren't for all the other "ban natural gas" idiocy, that could almost be believable.
You have yet to demonstrate that any bias against them was exercised save from the testimony of people whose studies were rejected. And even those testimonies have been nothing but sour grapes complaining. Why haven't any of these silenced scientists been able to demonstrate that they were not denied due to failings in their work?Because that wouldn't silence them and you've created another unlikely group.
But it has silenced them.
When the topic represent a threat to humanity's well being and the question has been made political by people taken in by the fossil fuel industry's PR campaign, how would you suggest science react?his charge now requires all the publishers and the peer reviewers (who are often selected by authors) to all be cooperating in your conspiracy.
If the colleges don't fund the study, there is no paper to review.
Remember the ClimateGate emails where they were talking about preventing
skeptics from getting published? That was great, wasn't it?
What trillions of dollars? What money wasted? What bad priorities?But its long past time to accept that global warming is taking place,
Yes. It's warmer.
that it is of a magnitude to be threatening
I disagree. Certainly not threatening enough to justify the trillions of dollars of idiocy
that's been going on. The money that's wasted and the bad priorities that are being pushed
are causing real damage. Actual deaths.
What green mandates?Remember all those California wildfires that were caused by powerlines recently?
Do you think PG&E should have been spending more on powerline infrastructure?
On clearing dry fuel from around their towers? Do you think maybe, just maybe,
the billions they've been forced to spend on green mandates may have taken
precedence over mundane maintenance that could have prevented or reduced
those disasters?
The attempt was to throw a little "unprecedented" back in to the mix.
People don't have a right to be published. If you think they are not being treated fairly or objectively, you need a little more evidence than we've seen so far. The Wikipedia article I brought up for Christopher Landsea told how a study of his in which he claimed that increased temperatures would decrease the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere was rejected by four peer reviewers, two of which Landsea himself had selected.
The trans mob? Look what conservative Americans are trying to do for having the unmitigated gall to defeat Donald Trump in the general election. Can I call them a mob?
But you offer nothing to refute it.
Reducing fuel consumption, GHG emissions and pollution.
I don't think so. So another point for which you lack a refutation
The universe is a complex place. Everything goes on in there.
You have yet to demonstrate that any bias against them was exercised save from the testimony of people whose studies were rejected. And even those testimonies have been nothing but sour grapes complaining. Why haven't any of these silenced scientists been able to demonstrate that they were not denied due to failings in their work?
When the topic represent a threat to humanity's well being and the question has been made political by people taken in by the fossil fuel industry's PR campaign, how would you suggest science react?
What trillions of dollars? What money wasted? What bad priorities?
What green mandates?
apnews.com
