Why do liberals have to make up climate change?

[Wyld Kard]

I don't deny science. The research is overwhelmingly prove humans are causing climate change. This isn't a debate, it's real

The research is overwhelmingly prove humans are causing climate change

You're gullible if you believe that crap.

Man-made global warming is a lie and not backed up by science claims leading meteorologist Daily Mail Online

 

[Wyld Kard]

The debate on climate change is closed. We need only to look at all the nations who've taken real measures to address a problem that we Americans told them to address. Man-made climate change is real. The best example of it is China. Their next economic boom is going to be the green/alternative technology industry. No one in China is barking at the moon calling their pollution problem a hoax. That's because it's plainly understood to be a real problem.

Deniers in America still exist, but their numbers are negligible. 70% of Americans say they are more apt to voting for a presidential candidate who would act on climate change, not deny it, and that includes 50% of Republican voters even.

The oil & gas lobby understands this, which is why they've done their best to muddy the waters by funding junk science in order to promote the false narrative that says there is a real debate among scientists, while there is none. The consensus among the scientific community across all developed nations is astounding.

A few remaining peons can pretend all they'd like, but the debate is closed. Man-made climate change is the reality of the world we live in.

Man-made climate change is the reality of the world we live in.

Maybe for you and the other gullible nut-jobs who drank the Kool-Aid it is.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Perhaps if the Kochs and Monsantos would stop funding Fox Noise to fudge data, people would take that seriously.

Unlike MSNBC, FOX makes a profit. It doesn't need "funding" from anyone.

"It doesn't need funding from anyone"? So it broadcasts commercials freely? LOL, the more you post, the more I've come to believe you will soon be declared brain dead.

Revenue isn't "funding," which implies a charitable contribution, you ******* moron.

Nice try. Have the doctors, or have they not, found you to be brain dead?

"DEFINITION of 'Revenue' The amount of money that a company actually receives during a specific period, including discounts and deductions for returned merchandise. It is the "top line" or "gross income" figure from which costs are subtracted to determine net income."

It's not a "try," asshole. I understand what words mean, and apparently you don't.

How does that make "revenue" the same as "funding?" Revenue is obtained by selling a product or service. "Funding" is obtained from charity or from the government.

LOL, temper, temper little guy. "The amount of money that a company actually receives during a specific period" is clear, concise and over your head.

Try this one: REVENUE
]Definition income generated from sale of goods or services, or any other use of capital or assets, associated with the main operations of an organization before any costs or expenses are deducted. Revenue is shown usually as the top item in an income (profit and loss) statement from which all charges, costs, and expenses are subtracted to arrive at net income. Also called sales, or (in the UK) turnover.


FUNDING:
1.Providing financial resources to finance a need, program, or project. In general, this term is used when a firm fills the need for cash from its own internal reserves, and the term 'financing' is used when the need is filled from external or borrowed money.
2.Grant of authority to an agency, department, or unit to incur monetary obligations and to pay for them.
3.Transferring ownership of assets to a trust to avoid probate.


Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/funding.html#ixzz3b14vY

 

[mamooth]

However, then is where the real science began to fall apart and the scam began.

Ad this is where your train goes off the rails and rolls down into conspiracy theory land. You managed to hit nearly every debunked denier talking point and fraudulent claim. But you're in good company, as most of the conservatives here have jumped on the train to kooksville with you.

Every denier here is a card-carrying member of the right-wing fruitloop cult. Denialism is purely a political conspiracy cult. They don't even attempt science any more, which is really for the best, being they all stink so badly at it. Denialism is now entirely conspiracy theories.

In direct contrast, global warming science is supported by all political types all across the globe. That's because it's science, not politics.

You can claim a VastSecretGlobalSocialistPlot exists, but everyone now just laughs at that strange conspiracy theory. Even FOX News doesn't want to touch deniers any more, that's how toxic deniers are considered. Your leaders have already taken the lifeboats and abandoned your sinking ship.

 

[bripat9643]

Unlike MSNBC, FOX makes a profit. It doesn't need "funding" from anyone.

"It doesn't need funding from anyone"? So it broadcasts commercials freely? LOL, the more you post, the more I've come to believe you will soon be declared brain dead.

Revenue isn't "funding," which implies a charitable contribution, you ******* moron.

Nice try. Have the doctors, or have they not, found you to be brain dead?

"DEFINITION of 'Revenue' The amount of money that a company actually receives during a specific period, including discounts and deductions for returned merchandise. It is the "top line" or "gross income" figure from which costs are subtracted to determine net income."

It's not a "try," asshole. I understand what words mean, and apparently you don't.

How does that make "revenue" the same as "funding?" Revenue is obtained by selling a product or service. "Funding" is obtained from charity or from the government.

LOL, temper, temper little guy. "The amount of money that a company actually receives during a specific period" is clear, concise and over your head.

Try this one: REVENUE
]Definition income generated from sale of goods or services, or any other use of capital or assets, associated with the main operations of an organization before any costs or expenses are deducted. Revenue is shown usually as the top item in an income (profit and loss) statement from which all charges, costs, and expenses are subtracted to arrive at net income. Also called sales, or (in the UK) turnover.


FUNDING:
1.Providing financial resources to finance a need, program, or project. In general, this term is used when a firm fills the need for cash from its own internal reserves, and the term 'financing' is used when the need is filled from external or borrowed money.
2.Grant of authority to an agency, department, or unit to incur monetary obligations and to pay for them.
3.Transferring ownership of assets to a trust to avoid probate.


Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/funding.html#ixzz3b14vY

You're only proving my point, numskull. You used the term "funding," not "revenue."

 

[Skylar]

I don't deny science. The research is overwhelmingly prove humans are causing climate change. This isn't a debate, it's real

The research is overwhelmingly prove humans are causing climate change

You're gullible if you believe that crap.

Man-made global warming is a lie and not backed up by science claims leading meteorologist Daily Mail Online

And by 'leading meteorologist', you mean a guy with no training in meteorology......instead sporting a degree in JOURNALISM?

Sigh, some conservatives are dumber than a box of rocks. They are so desperate to believe what they want to be true that they'll ignore thousands of studies and legions of climatologists in favor of a lone man with no more qualifications than David Letterman.

 

[Skylar]

However, then is where the real science began to fall apart and the scam began.

Ad this is where your train goes off the rails and rolls down into conspiracy theory land. You managed to hit nearly every debunked denier talking point and fraudulent claim. But you're in good company, as most of the conservatives here have jumped on the train to kooksville with you.

Every denier here is a card-carrying member of the right-wing fruitloop cult. Denialism is purely a political conspiracy cult. They don't even attempt science any more, which is really for the best, being they all stink so badly at it. Denialism is now entirely conspiracy theories.

Exactly. There's something about American Conservatives specifically that is especially susceptible to this kind of manipulation. They're very.....malleable, if you can frame it terms of conspiracy theories. From birtherism to 'Obama is a Muslim', to climate change denial.......you can convince many of these stupid ***** of almost anything if you package in enough conspiracy batshit.

We can literally measure, in real time, the increased infrared emissions of the increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. And still, they ignore it all.

Belief is their basis of belief. Its a circular system of batshit that you can't penetrate with any number of experts, measurements or evidence. As they assess credibility as being a product of agreeing with they already believe. Which is why they laud the words of a weatherman with a journalism degree over any number of meteorologists and climatologists, any number of studies, any measurement.

There's just a strong, strong vein of anti-intellectualism is the modern day GOP.

 

[Flash]

The debate on climate change is closed. We need only to look at all the nations who've taken real measures to address a problem that we Americans told them to address. Man-made climate change is real. .

Sorry but you are simply wrong. The science is not there. The science that is spouted is fabricated for the most part. There are numerous examples of that starting with Al Gore's infamous Hokey Stick Graph where the data was cherry picked.

Go read the emails from Climategate I and II and you will see the sonofabitches admitting they made up data and used fudge factor.

It is a massive scam that only those stupid Americans that Jonathan Gruber told us about believe.

 

[Flash]

[

Exactly. There's something about American Conservatives specifically that is especially susceptible to this kind of manipulation. They're very.....malleable, if you can frame it terms of conspiracy theories. From birtherism to 'Obama is a Muslim', to climate change denial.......you can convince many of these stupid ***** of almost anything if you package in enough conspiracy batshit.

We can literally measure, in real time, the increased infrared emissions of the increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. And still, they ignore it all.

Belief is their basis of belief. Its a circular system of batshit that you can't penetrate with any number of experts, measurements or evidence. As they assess credibility as being a product of agreeing with they already believe. Which is why they laud the words of a weatherman with a journalism degree over any number of meteorologists and climatologists, any number of studies, any measurement.

There's just a strong, strong vein of anti-intellectualism is the modern day GOP.

Sorry but the emails that were exposed in Climategate I and II was hardly a conspiracy theory manipulation. They were real time admission of data manipulation and outright lies.

The data is not there because the people that collected it admitted they fabricated the scam.

Johnathan Gruber identified stupid Americans like yourself that are gullible to manipulation. He was talking about how you belled the lies of Obamacare but it is just as applicable to this silly AGW scam. That is the real batshit crazy faction in this country.

 

[Skylar]

[

Exactly. There's something about American Conservatives specifically that is especially susceptible to this kind of manipulation. They're very.....malleable, if you can frame it terms of conspiracy theories. From birtherism to 'Obama is a Muslim', to climate change denial.......you can convince many of these stupid ***** of almost anything if you package in enough conspiracy batshit.

We can literally measure, in real time, the increased infrared emissions of the increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. And still, they ignore it all.

Belief is their basis of belief. Its a circular system of batshit that you can't penetrate with any number of experts, measurements or evidence. As they assess credibility as being a product of agreeing with they already believe. Which is why they laud the words of a weatherman with a journalism degree over any number of meteorologists and climatologists, any number of studies, any measurement.

There's just a strong, strong vein of anti-intellectualism is the modern day GOP.

Sorry but the emails that were exposed in Climategate I and II was hardly a conspiracy theory manipulation. They were real time admission of data manipulation and outright lies.

Lets review those emails and the data that was supposedly manipulated and lied about. You'll find its virtually inconsequential to the conclusions being drawn about ACC. And there are dozens of sources of data affirming and reaffirming ACC from around the world.

And they'd ALL have to be in on your conspiracy. Which is laughably unlikely.

Worse, your ilk ignore ANY data that affirms ACC. Regardless of source, measurement, or methodology. Demonstrating that your sole basis of credibility is if a source agrees with you. Eliminating the specific criticisms you levy against a particular source as being your common denominiator. As you'll ignore ANY source that doesn't say what you believe.

The data is not there because the people that collected it admitted they fabricated the scam.

Lets get to the nitty gritty. "Climate gate 1 and 2". Show me your evidence that the 'admitted they fabricated the scam'. And of course, you'll have to provide evidence that EVERY SINGLE SOURCE you ignore is in on your conspiracy.

Or accept evidence from sources that had nothing to do with "Climategate 1 and 2".

But you won't accept evidence, measurements or data from ANY source that contradicts you. And that's where your logic shatters.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

AGW is a control scam for lefties in addition to being a means to demonize and hinder the fossil fuel industry which is viewed as a repub supporter. AGW allows for gov growth and control which is a democrat staple.
As for the science, plenty of apolitical, unaffiliated scientists have debunked the theory and most, including many on the propagated alarmist 'consensus' list, believe measures undertaken are way too extreme.

 

[Flash]

[

Lets get to the nitty gritty. "Climate gate 1 and 2". Show me your evidence that the 'admitted they fabricated the scam'. .

The emails are posted on line. Google will pop them right up. Go find them yourself. I have no intentions of doing your work for you.

You need to really stop being one of these stupid Americans that Jonathan Gruber was talking about and start thinking for yourself. When you let idiots like Al Gore and this clown in the White House do your thinking for you then you become the poster child for that stupid American.

Just remember that Obama's stupid defense of AGW comes from the massive donations to the Democrat Party from billionaire environmental wacko Tom Steyer.

However, I will get you started. Although there are thousands of articles about the Climategate scandals this is as good a summary as I have found.



Climategate in Review

Climategate Overview:

Those of us keeping abreast of the climate literature have known for quite some time that the explanation for Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) relating to climate change, was far from the entire story, with almost all dissenting opinion having been actively suppressed. But the full extent of the problem was not made clear until November 19, 2009, when approximately 160 megabytes of data files and email correspondence was leaked from Britain's government-funded University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU).

An initial review of this material revealed four damning facts:

• Current global temperature data was being actively manipulated in order to conceal real-world temperature declines that did not support the computerized climate models that were being used to predict runaway global warming. Additionally, historical data showing that during the Medieval Warm Period (900-1300 AD), the earth had been warmer than what was seen today, thereby shattering any causal connection between man made CO2 and temperature rise.
  
  
  
• For quite some time, as is a normal part of any scientific peer-review process, independent scientists and organizations had been requesting the release of the raw temperature data used by the CRU in determining its results. Nevertheless, the CRU had continually refused to make their data available. (And now we understand why!) Additional requests for the data were made under the UK's Freedom of Information laws, and the scientists at the CRU are seen discussing how to circumvent these laws, including destroying correspondence and the temperature data itself, rather than allow it to be seen by others.
  
  
  
• A review of the source code for the computerized models used to predict the significant global temperature gains being reported, showed that much of it was completely unintelligible to the programmers charged with maintain it, and in some cases, these programs could not be made to reproduce similar results previously obtained by others using the same code base and data sets. This code was in a constant state of manipulation in order to produce predetermined results.
  
  
  
• The correspondence shows a small group of scientists frequently discussing ways to subvert the normal scientific peer-review process. This included having climate papers only be "reviewed" by one another, or by people already fully committed to the belief in AGW, stopping publication of any papers that were skeptical of AGW, and working to remove editors from scientific journals that were willing to publish any dissenting opinions.

Soon after the release of the CRU files, this event came to be known as Climategate. However, none of this came as a real shock to a group of skeptical scientists who had been questioning the AGW results for some time, but had been effectively barred from publishing their analyses in standard scientific journals and media outlets. In this way, the general public had been manipulated through the presentation of an unchallenged propagandist viewpoint, into supporting drastic government interventionist policies in order to stave off the supposed pending crisis to all of humanity.

 

[Redfish]

"Tiny dangerous tin cans"?

Isn't that revealing.

what exactly would you call a Smart car?

The first time I saw a SmartCar (before it was marketed here, made by Mercedes) it was parked on a street in the French Quarter. Sideways.

I'd say that's above all practical.
Although the gas mileage isn't what it should be for that size, but that's because of diesel restrictions. So in that sense, not as practical as it should be.

But "dangerous"? Hardly.

yes, dangerous. you are better off on a motorcycle. At least on a bike you have a helmet.

 

[Redfish]

The debate on climate change is closed. We need only to look at all the nations who've taken real measures to address a problem that we Americans told them to address. Man-made climate change is real. The best example of it is China. Their next economic boom is going to be the green/alternative technology industry. No one in China is barking at the moon calling their pollution problem a hoax. That's because it's plainly understood to be a real problem.

Deniers in America still exist, but their numbers are negligible. 70% of Americans say they are more apt to voting for a presidential candidate who would act on climate change, not deny it, and that includes 50% of Republican voters even.

The oil & gas lobby understands this, which is why they've done their best to muddy the waters by funding junk science in order to promote the false narrative that says there is a real debate among scientists, while there is none. The consensus among the scientific community across all developed nations is astounding.

A few remaining peons can pretend all they'd like, but the debate is closed. Man-made climate change is the reality of the world we live in.

you left wing assholes will never understand that pollution and climate change ARE NOT THE SAME THING.

Pollution is bad, pollution does not cause climate change.

If you libs must have a cause, pick a real one, pollution.

 

[Pogo]

"Tiny dangerous tin cans"?

Isn't that revealing.

what exactly would you call a Smart car?

The first time I saw a SmartCar (before it was marketed here, made by Mercedes) it was parked on a street in the French Quarter. Sideways.

I'd say that's above all practical.
Although the gas mileage isn't what it should be for that size, but that's because of diesel restrictions. So in that sense, not as practical as it should be.

But "dangerous"? Hardly.

yes, dangerous. you are better off on a motorcycle. At least on a bike you have a helmet.

And in a car you have an entire body frame around you.

There ain't nothing "dangerous" about it. "Dangerous" would be those upside-down bathtubs on stilts with an absurd center of gravity the only reason for whose existence is automotive companies evading mileage standards. 'Safe' and 'dangerous' are measured in maneuverability, and a small, low-to-the-ground vehicle is always more maneuverable than a behemoth.

If that were not true, we'd all be driving around in skyscrapers and motorcycles wouldn't have even been invented.

 

[Flash]

There is something these Moon Bats that have this AGW scam as their religion seem to forget.

The whole world runs on fossil fuels with some nuclear energy. Fossil fuels support a worldwide population of 7 billion people.

When the supply of energy is curtailed the economies of nations will fall. You are not going to heat a house in the middle of winter with Obama's "earth friendly" Solyndra solar cells. You are not going run manufacturing or transportation on these low efficient environmental wacko solar cells or wind turbines. Millions of people, if not billions, are going to starve and the economies of most of the world are going to crash. That is why China, with its developing economy, is not touching the wacko technologies. They are building coal and oil fired power facilities as fast as they can. Meanwhile economies like Spain that tried to go the "Green" route almost went bankrupted.

There is no significant generation of power by either solar or wind power anywhere in the world that is not massively subsidized by a stupid government. Alternative energy sources simply cannot compete with fossil fuels.

Humans have adapted to climate change for most of their existence. Ten thousands years ago a third of the earth was covered with ice and when global warming started humans thrived.

Climate change is fact of life here on earth. It has always been that way. We have had global warming ever since the end of the last ice age. We may not be able to sustain a population of 7 billion (soon to be 10 billion) with the climate of the future but as a species we will be around for a bit longer despite idiots like Al Gore telling us we are all going to drown as he buys a ocean front mansion with one hellva carbon footprint himself.

 

[Wry Catcher]

"It doesn't need funding from anyone"? So it broadcasts commercials freely? LOL, the more you post, the more I've come to believe you will soon be declared brain dead.

Revenue isn't "funding," which implies a charitable contribution, you ******* moron.

Nice try. Have the doctors, or have they not, found you to be brain dead?

"DEFINITION of 'Revenue' The amount of money that a company actually receives during a specific period, including discounts and deductions for returned merchandise. It is the "top line" or "gross income" figure from which costs are subtracted to determine net income."

It's not a "try," asshole. I understand what words mean, and apparently you don't.

How does that make "revenue" the same as "funding?" Revenue is obtained by selling a product or service. "Funding" is obtained from charity or from the government.

LOL, temper, temper little guy. "The amount of money that a company actually receives during a specific period" is clear, concise and over your head.

Try this one: REVENUE
]Definition income generated from sale of goods or services, or any other use of capital or assets, associated with the main operations of an organization before any costs or expenses are deducted. Revenue is shown usually as the top item in an income (profit and loss) statement from which all charges, costs, and expenses are subtracted to arrive at net income. Also called sales, or (in the UK) turnover.


FUNDING:
1.Providing financial resources to finance a need, program, or project. In general, this term is used when a firm fills the need for cash from its own internal reserves, and the term 'financing' is used when the need is filled from external or borrowed money.
2.Grant of authority to an agency, department, or unit to incur monetary obligations and to pay for them.
3.Transferring ownership of assets to a trust to avoid probate.


Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/funding.html#ixzz3b14vY

You're only proving my point, numskull. You used the term "funding," not "revenue."

Your really must be brain dead, or a very poor liar - both is a very real likelihood. I suggest you read post 116 very slowly and carefully. Assuming you have before posting above, it's likely both brain dead and mendacious are describe you to a "T".

 

[bripat9643]

Revenue isn't "funding," which implies a charitable contribution, you ******* moron.

Nice try. Have the doctors, or have they not, found you to be brain dead?

"DEFINITION of 'Revenue' The amount of money that a company actually receives during a specific period, including discounts and deductions for returned merchandise. It is the "top line" or "gross income" figure from which costs are subtracted to determine net income."

It's not a "try," asshole. I understand what words mean, and apparently you don't.

How does that make "revenue" the same as "funding?" Revenue is obtained by selling a product or service. "Funding" is obtained from charity or from the government.

LOL, temper, temper little guy. "The amount of money that a company actually receives during a specific period" is clear, concise and over your head.

Try this one: REVENUE
]Definition income generated from sale of goods or services, or any other use of capital or assets, associated with the main operations of an organization before any costs or expenses are deducted. Revenue is shown usually as the top item in an income (profit and loss) statement from which all charges, costs, and expenses are subtracted to arrive at net income. Also called sales, or (in the UK) turnover.


FUNDING:
1.Providing financial resources to finance a need, program, or project. In general, this term is used when a firm fills the need for cash from its own internal reserves, and the term 'financing' is used when the need is filled from external or borrowed money.
2.Grant of authority to an agency, department, or unit to incur monetary obligations and to pay for them.
3.Transferring ownership of assets to a trust to avoid probate.


Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/funding.html#ixzz3b14vY

You're only proving my point, numskull. You used the term "funding," not "revenue."

Your really must be brain dead, or a very poor liar - both is a very real likelihood. I suggest you read post 116 very slowly and carefully. Assuming you have before posting above, it's likely both brain dead and mendacious are describe you to a "T".

You're still lying. You claimed FOX news received "funding" from the Koch brothers. You can't seem to decide which side of that issue you're on. Do they receive "funding" or not?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Pogo wrote, "Perhaps if the Kochs and Monsantos would stop funding Fox Noise to fudge data, people would take that seriously."

You wrote: "Revenue isn't "funding," which implies a charitable contribution, you ******* moron."

I wrote: ""It doesn't need funding from anyone"? Asking, do you know for sure Fox hasn't received any Federal Grants" Followed by, "So it broadcasts commercials freely? And I then posted the definition of revenue and funding because I inferred your post was defining Fox as immune from being influenced by corporate sponsors and operated without advertising.

 

[Flash]

Pogo wrote, "Perhaps if the Kochs and Monsantos would stop funding Fox Noise to fudge data, people would take that seriously."

You wrote: "Revenue isn't "funding," which implies a charitable contribution, you ******* moron."

I wrote: ""It doesn't need funding from anyone"? Asking, do you know for sure Fox hasn't received any Federal Grants" Followed by, "So it broadcasts commercials freely? And I then posted the definition of revenue and funding because I inferred your post was defining Fox as immune from being influenced by corporate sponsors and operated without advertising.

Funny thing. MSNBC (Left wing trash network) has about the same sponsors as Fox.

I suspect that when the election heat up the Left billionaires like that wacko Tom Steyer will be buying a lot of time on MSNBC.