What if Global Warming is a Scam?

[Uncensored2008]

Global Warming isn't a hoax, but not caused by human beings as well. It are natural cycles beyond our control. But even then is it necessary to look for alternative energy resources since fossil fuels will not last long in the way we (mis)use them.

Anthropogenic Global Warming is a hoax. We have been in a general warming cycle since the end of the ice age. But that has nothing to do with stuffing cash in the pockets of Solyndra scammers.

 

[mamooth]

earned a PhD in geology from Caltech long before you were born junior.

Not being a jackass, I won't question your stated credentials, no matter how bad your science and logic gets.

The reality is in science you get to make ONE claim. You don't get to say it will do more AND less.

But you're the only one making conflicting claims. And no one is interested in defending your strawmen.

Of course, your denier predictions are totally unfalsifiable, mainly because you refuse to make any predictions. That's why it's so obvious you're doing pseudoscience. Scientists make predictions. Deniers just rage a lot.

In contrast, AGW science has been making testable predictions for decades, and seen them come true over and over. That's why it has such credibility. Take a lesson from it, and develop the spine to make predictions yourself. If you can also see success with your predictions for many years, you'll also develop credibility. Until you do, you'll remain a joke.

 

[westwall]

earned a PhD in geology from Caltech long before you were born junior.

Not being a jackass, I won't question your stated credentials, no matter how bad your science and logic gets.

The reality is in science you get to make ONE claim. You don't get to say it will do more AND less.

But you're the only one making conflicting claims. And no one is interested in defending your strawmen.

Of course, your denier predictions are totally unfalsifiable, mainly because you refuse to make any predictions. That's why it's so obvious you're doing pseudoscience. Scientists make predictions. Deniers just rage a lot.

In contrast, AGW science has been making testable predictions for decades, and seen them come true over and over. That's why it has such credibility. Take a lesson from it, and develop the spine to make predictions yourself. If you can also see success with your predictions for many years, you'll also develop credibility. Until you do, you'll remain a joke.

Nope. That's you folks. Two of many reports where you silly people take both sides of an issue.


1 foot less snow in winter? Minnesota Climate Change Forum highlights dramatic changes | Updraft | Minnesota Public Radio News

Snowstorm: East Coast Blizzard Tied to Climate Change - TIME


And, no, AGW "theorists" haven't made a measurable prediction in years.

 

[HenryBHough]

"If" ?????????????

 

[boedicca]

I suggest that the OP take a look at what has happened to employment in Spain and energy prices in Germany....

 

[AntiParty]

Wrong. The climatologists entire theory is based on computer models. there is no empirical data at all. They have violated the scientific method at every turn. The scientific method requires you to make a prediction about how your theory will behave in the real world. GW supporters claim that global warming will cause both more snow and less snow. More rain and less rain.

That makes the hypothesis untestable. Look up what the definition of an untestable hypothesis is then get back to us.

So you don't consider "more rain or less rain" extreme climate changes? You think that it just has to ran a lot or droubt a lot to be an extreme climate change?

You should really research the topic before talking bout it. Excuse me, research it beyond Fox News.

I earned a PhD in geology from Caltech long before you were born junior. The reality is in science you get to make ONE claim. You don't get to say it will do more AND less. That is a fundamental violation of the scientific method. Look that up sometime.

Looks like it's time for you to learn the basics.

I'm glad you posted this.

You have a PhD in rocks.

Rocks have nothing to do with weather.

The front side of a "front" may be cold and the back side of a front may be "hot" I KNOW, IT'S SO CRAZY! GET THIS! Sometimes they actually call for rain and it doesn't happen!

Igneous and metamorphic rock may be able to tell us history. But that's not what we are talking about.

 

[GISMYS]

WHAT IF??????????????????? THERE IS NO DOUBT!!! DUH!! WE JUST HAD THE COLDEST WINTER IN MANY YEARS,CODD TEMP. RECORDS BROKEN OVER AND OVER, GREAT LAKES FROZEN AND THEN THERE IS WEATHER "science" talk of a new mini ice age!!!!

 

[AntiParty]

Wrong. The climatologists entire theory is based on computer models. there is no empirical data at all. They have violated the scientific method at every turn. The scientific method requires you to make a prediction about how your theory will behave in the real world. GW supporters claim that global warming will cause both more snow and less snow. More rain and less rain.

That makes the hypothesis untestable. Look up what the definition of an untestable hypothesis is then get back to us.

So you don't consider "more rain or less rain" extreme climate changes? You think that it just has to ran a lot or droubt a lot to be an extreme climate change?

You should really research the topic before talking bout it. Excuse me, research it beyond Fox News.

Of course "more rain or less rain" is NOT a valid projection.. It's a self-cancelling logical statement. Just like "a higher Dow avg or a lower Dow avg".. You could argue that natural weathers will STALL out and create intense LOCAL effects, but that's not the same statement. Besides, it's based on a 0.5degC change in warming.. Do you think that 0.5degC matters to your average tornado producing super cell thunderstorm? HOW MANY factors have to come together to create a tornado or a hurricane?? Forecasting WEATHER by TEMPERATURE alone is an excersize for fools.. Especially when the temperature increase is said to be GLOBAL and evenly distributed upon the surface and extends into the weather making portion of the atmosphere..

I generally read EVERYTHING.

But you started with "Of course "more rain or less rain" is NOT a valid projection.. "
when global warming is making the statement of extreme changes in environmental conditions.

The news has been flooded with drought's and floods that haven't been typical to our region.

HOLLY CRAP I KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON HERE.

I've always called the Right Wing a "Title alone party" Because they don't seem to read past a title.

They think that Global warming means we will only see warmth and not cooling OMG OMG ITS SO DAMN FUNNY AND IRONIC!

It's why the passed the patriot act. They are patriots LOL. jEEZ this country needs to wake up.

 

[AntiParty]

So according to this last guy, no one will believe in global warming unless it's hot................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................~Fin

 

[GISMYS]

So according to this last guy, no one will believe in global warming unless it's hot................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................~Fin

To have warming you need heat!!! duh!!! ICE DOES NOT HEAT THE EARTH!!!

 

[westwall]

So you don't consider "more rain or less rain" extreme climate changes? You think that it just has to ran a lot or droubt a lot to be an extreme climate change?

You should really research the topic before talking bout it. Excuse me, research it beyond Fox News.

I earned a PhD in geology from Caltech long before you were born junior. The reality is in science you get to make ONE claim. You don't get to say it will do more AND less. That is a fundamental violation of the scientific method. Look that up sometime.

Looks like it's time for you to learn the basics.

I'm glad you posted this.

You have a PhD in rocks.

Rocks have nothing to do with weather.

The front side of a "front" may be cold and the back side of a front may be "hot" I KNOW, IT'S SO CRAZY! GET THIS! Sometimes they actually call for rain and it doesn't happen!

Igneous and metamorphic rock may be able to tell us history. But that's not what we are talking about.

No, I have a PhD in the EARTH SCIENCES. That means ALL sciences, physics, chemistry, a touch of biology and of course mathematics. Put another way, I can teach any climatology class. ANY class. A PhD climatologist would be lost attempting to teach a second year geology class. Crystalography, minerology ....they would have not a prayer teaching any one of those classes.

No, it's the climatologists who are out of their depth. A meteorologist has a better degree than a climatologist. They are considered an "exact science". Climatology is an "inexact" science.

Do look up the difference.

 

[westwall]

So you don't consider "more rain or less rain" extreme climate changes? You think that it just has to ran a lot or droubt a lot to be an extreme climate change?

You should really research the topic before talking bout it. Excuse me, research it beyond Fox News.

Of course "more rain or less rain" is NOT a valid projection.. It's a self-cancelling logical statement. Just like "a higher Dow avg or a lower Dow avg".. You could argue that natural weathers will STALL out and create intense LOCAL effects, but that's not the same statement. Besides, it's based on a 0.5degC change in warming.. Do you think that 0.5degC matters to your average tornado producing super cell thunderstorm? HOW MANY factors have to come together to create a tornado or a hurricane?? Forecasting WEATHER by TEMPERATURE alone is an excersize for fools.. Especially when the temperature increase is said to be GLOBAL and evenly distributed upon the surface and extends into the weather making portion of the atmosphere..

I generally read EVERYTHING.

But you started with "Of course "more rain or less rain" is NOT a valid projection.. "
when global warming is making the statement of extreme changes in environmental conditions.

The news has been flooded with drought's and floods that haven't been typical to our region.

HOLLY CRAP I KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON HERE.

I've always called the Right Wing a "Title alone party" Because they don't seem to read past a title.

They think that Global warming means we will only see warmth and not cooling OMG OMG ITS SO DAMN FUNNY AND IRONIC!

It's why the passed the patriot act. They are patriots LOL. jEEZ this country needs to wake up.

"Right wing" The loyal party drone speaks!

 

[Mr. H.]

This is the fruit of labor in a carbonized USA. Hydrocarbons are the shit, and they will remain so for generations to come. We are on task. The rest of the world, however...

 

[Old Rocks]

I earned a PhD in geology from Caltech long before you were born junior. The reality is in science you get to make ONE claim. You don't get to say it will do more AND less. That is a fundamental violation of the scientific method. Look that up sometime.

Looks like it's time for you to learn the basics.

I'm glad you posted this.

You have a PhD in rocks.

Rocks have nothing to do with weather.

The front side of a "front" may be cold and the back side of a front may be "hot" I KNOW, IT'S SO CRAZY! GET THIS! Sometimes they actually call for rain and it doesn't happen!

Igneous and metamorphic rock may be able to tell us history. But that's not what we are talking about.

No, I have a PhD in the EARTH SCIENCES. That means ALL sciences, physics, chemistry, a touch of biology and of course mathematics. Put another way, I can teach any climatology class. ANY class. A PhD climatologist would be lost attempting to teach a second year geology class. Crystalography, minerology ....they would have not a prayer teaching any one of those classes.

No, it's the climatologists who are out of their depth. A meteorologist has a better degree than a climatologist. They are considered an "exact science". Climatology is an "inexact" science.

Do look up the difference.

And then there are atmospheric Physicists. Like Dr. James Hansen. Who know an order of magnitude more than Walleyes about climate, and the affects of atmospheric gases.

Walleyes claims he could teach anywhere. But at the University that I am attending, I have yet to meet anyone teaching any scientific disciplines that express any doubt concerning the validity of AGW. And most state that the IPCC statements are far too conservative.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I suggest that the OP take a look at what has happened to employment in Spain and energy prices in Germany....

The left is at war to erradicate the middle class, they don't view these as bad things. Putting energy out of reach of the peasantry restores the feudal order that the left demands.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I'm glad you posted this.

You have a PhD in rocks.

Rocks have nothing to do with weather.

The front side of a "front" may be cold and the back side of a front may be "hot" I KNOW, IT'S SO CRAZY! GET THIS! Sometimes they actually call for rain and it doesn't happen!

Igneous and metamorphic rock may be able to tell us history. But that's not what we are talking about.

I'm glad you posted this.

You may lack even a GED, but you spend hours each day on ThinkProgress, and watching MSNBC - ergo you are eminently qualified to speak on global warming....

 

[flacaltenn]

I'm glad you posted this.

You have a PhD in rocks.

Rocks have nothing to do with weather.

The front side of a "front" may be cold and the back side of a front may be "hot" I KNOW, IT'S SO CRAZY! GET THIS! Sometimes they actually call for rain and it doesn't happen!

Igneous and metamorphic rock may be able to tell us history. But that's not what we are talking about.

No, I have a PhD in the EARTH SCIENCES. That means ALL sciences, physics, chemistry, a touch of biology and of course mathematics. Put another way, I can teach any climatology class. ANY class. A PhD climatologist would be lost attempting to teach a second year geology class. Crystalography, minerology ....they would have not a prayer teaching any one of those classes.

No, it's the climatologists who are out of their depth. A meteorologist has a better degree than a climatologist. They are considered an "exact science". Climatology is an "inexact" science.

Do look up the difference.

And then there are atmospheric Physicists. Like Dr. James Hansen. Who know an order of magnitude more than Walleyes about climate, and the affects of atmospheric gases.

Walleyes claims he could teach anywhere. But at the University that I am attending, I have yet to meet anyone teaching any scientific disciplines that express any doubt concerning the validity of AGW. And most state that the IPCC statements are far too conservative.

That's because you chose a "Sanitized and Purged" university.. Isn't it Ore. ? Where contrary opinions are banned and cause for dismissal?? What you do for a PhD is a MICROCOSM of scientific inquiry.. Your core competencies are established in the earlier years. Might take you LONGER in Grad school to make up for the relatively weak curriculum of a "climate science" degree..

 

[Ame®icano]

I'm glad you posted this.

You have a PhD in rocks.

Rocks have nothing to do with weather.

The front side of a "front" may be cold and the back side of a front may be "hot" I KNOW, IT'S SO CRAZY! GET THIS! Sometimes they actually call for rain and it doesn't happen!

Igneous and metamorphic rock may be able to tell us history. But that's not what we are talking about.

I'm glad you posted this.

You may lack even a GED, but you spend hours each day on ThinkProgress, and watching MSNBC - ergo you are eminently qualified to speak on global warming....

The proof is right on the front of your eyes. Just ask lap dog media.
Proof of global warming? Because it's so damn cold.
Proof that economy is getting better? We have more unemployed people.

 

[westwall]

I'm glad you posted this.

You have a PhD in rocks.

Rocks have nothing to do with weather.

The front side of a "front" may be cold and the back side of a front may be "hot" I KNOW, IT'S SO CRAZY! GET THIS! Sometimes they actually call for rain and it doesn't happen!

Igneous and metamorphic rock may be able to tell us history. But that's not what we are talking about.

No, I have a PhD in the EARTH SCIENCES. That means ALL sciences, physics, chemistry, a touch of biology and of course mathematics. Put another way, I can teach any climatology class. ANY class. A PhD climatologist would be lost attempting to teach a second year geology class. Crystalography, minerology ....they would have not a prayer teaching any one of those classes.

No, it's the climatologists who are out of their depth. A meteorologist has a better degree than a climatologist. They are considered an "exact science". Climatology is an "inexact" science.

Do look up the difference.

And then there are atmospheric Physicists. Like Dr. James Hansen. Who know an order of magnitude more than Walleyes about climate, and the affects of atmospheric gases.

Walleyes claims he could teach anywhere. But at the University that I am attending, I have yet to meet anyone teaching any scientific disciplines that express any doubt concerning the validity of AGW. And most state that the IPCC statements are far too conservative.

If he knows so much more than me why have almost all of his predictions been wrong? Silvia Brown, that well known charlatan had a better success rate than Hansen. Sure you want to hang your hat on his rep?

 

[AntiParty]

I'm glad you posted this.

You have a PhD in rocks.

Rocks have nothing to do with weather.

The front side of a "front" may be cold and the back side of a front may be "hot" I KNOW, IT'S SO CRAZY! GET THIS! Sometimes they actually call for rain and it doesn't happen!

Igneous and metamorphic rock may be able to tell us history. But that's not what we are talking about.

I'm glad you posted this.

You may lack even a GED, but you spend hours each day on ThinkProgress, and watching MSNBC - ergo you are eminently qualified to speak on global warming....

The proof is right on the front of your eyes. Just ask lap dog media.
Proof of global warming? Because it's so damn cold.
Proof that economy is getting better? We have more unemployed people.

It's clear the stupids are here.

I never stated Global Warming was a scam. I simply wonder why so many people repeat what the bais media gets paid to say.

I've read extensive science exams of Global Warming. I can't make a choice on the matter.

My point was to absolutely solidify that it's false is ABSOLUTELYL ignorant. Just sit back and learn and research. Why scream we are all going to die or it's all a scam? Seems there is a middle pillow there where I belong.

I'll admit, I haven't done the research so Im not convinced. What does that make me?

But why do the Kosh brothers and Fox News spend so much money on controlling the media on this matter? THIS makes me think it's not false.
(Oh, you thought Right Wingers didn't control anything, gays didn't send you a flag?)