# Climate Change Deniers Are Immoral



## Liminal (Sep 27, 2016)

The Climate change deniers of today will be responsible for the suffering of everyone's children tomorrow.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Sep 27, 2016)

More hogwash from the duped fools.


----------



## PredFan (Sep 27, 2016)

Garbage.

What IS immoral is the global warming scam that is being pushed upon the world.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Sep 27, 2016)

PredFan said:


> Garbage.
> 
> What IS immoral is the global warming scam that is being pushed upon the world.



It's one massive wealth redistribution scam


----------



## PredFan (Sep 27, 2016)

Here is a glimpse into the future for everyone, courtesy of me, PredFan:

The ice caps have not changed from their normal, the polar bears are not gone, the seas have not risen, and the temperature is pretty much the same as now. Basically because global warming/climate change/climate disruption did not occur.

The governments and governing bodies say: "It's because of our efforts starting back in the early century."

Even though it was a scam all along, that is how they will spin it when nothing happens.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Sep 27, 2016)

Liminal said:


> The Climate change deniers of today will be responsible for the suffering of everyone's children tomorrow.


Hillary flying 953,675 miles in private jets while employed at Foggy Bottom has destroyed our children's future.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Sep 27, 2016)

Liminal said:


> The Climate change deniers of today will be responsible for the suffering of everyone's children tomorrow.


Fantastic news since most weather related deaths are due to cold.  Plus millions of acres of new farmland will now be available.


----------



## irosie91 (Sep 27, 2016)

I,  truly believe in the single most spiritual statement----that TRULY DESCRIBES the universe >>>>Die Entropie der *Welt* strebt einem Maximum *zu  

isn't that poetic????????????*




              *


----------



## turzovka (Sep 27, 2016)

irosie91 said:


> I,  truly believe in the single most spiritual statement----that TRULY DESCRIBES the universe >>>>Die Entropie der *Welt* strebt einem Maximum *zu
> 
> isn't that poetic????????????*
> 
> *



Poetic in how it describes how such devolvement and disorder has overtaken the "high minded" GW set?


----------



## Liminal (Sep 27, 2016)

PredFan said:


> Garbage.
> 
> What IS immoral is the global warming scam that is being pushed upon the world.





SassyIrishLass said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...


And yet temperatures and oceans keep rising anyway.......despite your dim witted theories.


----------



## jc456 (Sep 27, 2016)

Liminal said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Garbage.
> ...


name somewhere and then, just maybe then people will pay attention to you.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Sep 27, 2016)

Liminal said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Garbage.
> ...



Nah, the oceans are not rising and the temps are right where they always are, well unless the "climate" goons fudge the data but they keep getting caught


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Sep 27, 2016)

Liminal said:


> The Climate change deniers of today will be responsible for the suffering of everyone's children tomorrow.


*Trustfundie Treehuggers*


It is in the interest of the transnationalist ruling classes and their heirs to shut down further development of natural resources, which historically has been the main cause of class mobility.


----------



## irosie91 (Sep 27, 2016)

turzovka said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > I,  truly believe in the single most spiritual statement----that TRULY DESCRIBES the universe >>>>Die Entropie der *Welt* strebt einem Maximum *zu
> ...



yeah.....that too.       and the best part is that germans get to
end sentences with dangling prepositions


----------



## turzovka (Sep 27, 2016)

Liminal said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Garbage.
> ...



And I bet they never rose before in the last billion years, before the invention of  spray cans and the automobile?

The fact so many universities and science foundations insist it is man causing this could not have any ulterior motives could it?

Well, there are still a large contingency of legitimate scientists who doubt the man-made impact (even if the climate is changing) based on their data and reasons.    Explain that.


----------



## irosie91 (Sep 27, 2016)

turzovka said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



also  ENTROPY-------"god" invented entropy


----------



## turzovka (Sep 27, 2016)

irosie91 said:


> turzovka said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



You need to start explaining your messages to us "middle of the road" types a little more often.    

I do not do poetry or German prepositions.

I think this top poster Liminal sounds like a decent and not rude kind of person, so I hate to come back like a pompous ass.

However, what I find to be a bit of a novelty is man-made global-warming scientists using the word "immoral" in their directives.     If being immoral is their cause I can think of better use of govt funds currently bestowed upon their endeavors.


----------



## Liminal (Sep 27, 2016)

SassyIrishLass said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...


Your ignorance and dishonesty go hand in hand with your lack of morality.


----------



## irosie91 (Sep 27, 2016)

turzovka said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > turzovka said:
> ...



I resent being called a pompous ass-----entropy is high school physics------the only part I liked-----it seemed so OPTIMISTIC
to me-----the principle justifies me


----------



## The Irish Ram (Sep 27, 2016)

From the mouths of those redistributing our wealth and resources:

 Listen to the words of former United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer:

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole," said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.

"We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy," said Edenhofer.

Now you tell me, o moral one, how does it benefit the environment to allow Asia to burn  fossil fuels with reckless abandon?  How many have to declare your cause as phoney science before you believe it? 

Need more?
Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, made a similar statement.

"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," she said in anticipation of last year's Paris climate summit.

"This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history."

And here is the UN icing:
The plan is to allow Third World countries to emit as much carbon dioxide as they wish -- because, as Edenhofer said, "in order to get rich one has to burn coal, oil or gas" -- while at the same time restricting emissions in advanced nations. This will, of course, choke economic growth in developed nations, but they deserve that fate as they "have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community," he said. The fanaticism runs so deep that one professor has even suggested that we need to plunge ourselves into a depression to fight global warming.

tit for tat polluting in no way will make the environment better.  It will throw us into a depression while allowing everybody else to pollute with non liability. How stupid of us to pretend wealth redistribution is* not* behind this scam.  Especially when they tell us the truth.


----------



## turzovka (Sep 27, 2016)

irosie91 said:


> I resent being called a pompous ass-


 
I have uncovered a weak spot.   !!!



irosie91 said:


> I entropy is high school physics------the only part I liked-----it seemed so OPTIMISTIC
> to me-----the principle justifies me



The word entropy is an interesting word, yes, I had to look it up, no, I cannot recall it from any classroom.

But if that is some principle in the universe  (i.e.  lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder), then how did the earth and life ever come to be without an intelligent designer?  (read:  the "I am Who am")


----------



## irosie91 (Sep 27, 2016)

turzovka said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > I resent being called a pompous ass-
> ...



you pose a very interesting question----HOWEVER----life----
from the primordial soup-------came to be-----ONLY BECAUSE of----------the mathematics of CHAOS    (ie----don't ask me!!!!)   
I think a better translation is-----"I AM, THAT I AM"    -----
I do not think a  "who"  fits in.        The   YHWH   thing is
more like a weird declension of the verb  TO BE   (don't quote me----I am not sure)------I am not even that an  "I"   fits into the
translation------it is inferred   (don't quote me----I am not sure)


----------



## turzovka (Sep 27, 2016)

irosie91 said:


> turzovka said:
> 
> 
> > irosie91 said:
> ...



I wanted to hit the "informative" button, but I am not sure that's the case   *:* )


----------



## jc456 (Sep 27, 2016)

Liminal said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


dude, again, you know those are merely predictions right?  you can read?


----------



## The Irish Ram (Sep 27, 2016)

Feel free not to believe the words that come right out of their own mouths:


> We distribute, IN REALITY the world's wealth by calling it "climate change"





> Free yourself from thinking it has anything to do with our environment.



Nothing political about it.  No mention of political choice.  Just the truth coming out of the mouths of those in charge of distributing our wealth.  
Sadly I can only offer the truth.  I can't fix blind stupidity....


----------



## Correll (Sep 27, 2016)

Liminal said:


> The Climate change deniers of today will be responsible for the suffering of everyone's children tomorrow.





When people can't defend their position, they try to find ways to shut up their enemies.


At least vile dishonest people.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Sep 27, 2016)

Liminal said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > From the mouths of those redistributing our wealth and resources:
> ...




Why are you upset? Pissed your economic change scam has been uncovered to the point it's not even a secret what you guys are really after?


.


----------



## Liminal (Sep 27, 2016)

The Irish Ram said:


> Feel free not to believe the words that come right out of their own mouths:
> 
> 
> > We distribute, IN REALITY the world's wealth by calling it "climate change"
> ...


And no doubt you believe that somehow disputes the facts of climate change.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Sep 27, 2016)

Liminal said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > Feel free not to believe the words that come right out of their own mouths:
> ...




What facts do you have? Don't tell me you are a 130 year old earther?

Or think thermometers in the 19th century could have been read accurately to the tenth of a degree?


.


----------



## Liminal (Sep 27, 2016)

Perhaps "immoral" isn't really an accurate description of climate change denial......."amoral" might be more appropriate


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 27, 2016)

Liminal said:


> The Climate change deniers of today will be responsible for the suffering of everyone's children tomorrow.



Itching to put your enemies in death camps...

You must be a democrat.


----------



## westwall (Sep 27, 2016)

Liminal said:


> The Climate change deniers of today will be responsible for the suffering of everyone's children tomorrow.







Showing once again that the AGW movement is religious and not scientific.  Morality is the realm of the religious nutters dude.  Science concerns itself with facts, and the AGW has precious little of those, which is why they resort to pathetic emotional appeals.  Just sayin....


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 27, 2016)

Liminal said:


> The Climate change deniers of today will be responsible for the suffering of everyone's children tomorrow.



My God man.. How much Moby Dick in that video do I weigh through to reach my judgement as an IMMORAL DENIER??  You got a lot a nerve making that assertion.. Since I bet your Liberal Arts soul which admires that sort of 1:41 torture and handwringing has never gone an hour WITH any "denier" that has actually invested time reading the literature and studying the science.

Could you at least KINDLY point me to the relevant spot in the video that VALIDATES my immorality and damnation please?  I ain't got time to attend your church and your unscientific beliefs..


----------



## Crick (Sep 27, 2016)

Whatever the cause of your denial, it puts my children and theirs at increased risk of harm.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 27, 2016)

Crick said:


> Whatever the cause of your denial, it puts my children and theirs at increased risk of harm.



It's very low on the scale of risk for harm. And AWFULLY high on exaggeration, fear, and PURPOSEFUL misinterpretation of the science for socio-political goals. 

I'd say antibiotic resistant bacteria and chaos in the 3rd world due to ignoring more pressing problems are much higher on the list.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 27, 2016)

Its actually pretty immoral and arrogant to be PURPOSELY panicking the herd based on OLD discarded projections and a handful of activist scientists back in the 80s making cover for one of the largest media -- political propaganda campaigns ever known to civilization.

I know YOU haven't noticed. But all those hysterical prognoses have been CONSISTENTLY downgraded since 1980.  But the HYPE and the FEAR campaign have ramped up in desperation..

Desperation SO DEEP -- now we gotta hear religious tribunals commenced over my "morality".


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 27, 2016)

3 min in I couldn't stomach the BS, deception, and hyperbole any more..Propaganda at its finest..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 27, 2016)

This isn't science or even science based.. its a dam cult brain washing film..


----------



## westwall (Sep 27, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Whatever the cause of your denial, it puts my children and theirs at increased risk of harm.
> ...






Amen to the drug resistant bacteria problem that all of these silly people are ignoring.  That will lead to more deaths than any weather related catastrophe and by many orders of magnitude.  These people are clueless.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Sep 27, 2016)

Crick said:


> Whatever the cause of your denial, it puts my children and theirs at increased risk of harm.




What denial, that would be your camp why can't you ever figure out and come to terms the climate changes 100% of scientist agree with that ..

Nothing last forever.


----------



## Liminal (Sep 28, 2016)

Why are all climate change deniers so universally ignorant and dishonest?


----------



## Liminal (Sep 28, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > The Climate change deniers of today will be responsible for the suffering of everyone's children tomorrow.
> ...


It doesn't take much nerve to point out the obvious to people who refuse to acknowledge reality.


----------



## Liminal (Sep 28, 2016)

PredFan said:


> Here is a glimpse into the future for everyone, courtesy of me, PredFan:
> 
> The ice caps have not changed from their normal, the polar bears are not gone, the seas have not risen, and the temperature is pretty much the same as now. Basically because global warming/climate change/climate disruption did not occur.
> 
> ...


There are no reputable or honest climate change deniers.....they don't exist.


----------



## Liminal (Sep 28, 2016)

westwall said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > The Climate change deniers of today will be responsible for the suffering of everyone's children tomorrow.
> ...


You pose an apt example of amorality.    The scientific process itself is obviously unrelated to any moral principles.......the application of that science has everything to do with morality.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 28, 2016)

Liminal said:


> The Climate change deniers of today will be responsible for the suffering of everyone's children tomorrow.



Is it more moral to demand observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence for a thing and remain skeptical till such time as the evidence is produced...or to simply accept a claim based primarily on one's political leanings...and cause untold harm to world and personal economies?


----------



## SSDD (Sep 28, 2016)

Liminal said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Garbage.
> ...



We are clawing out of an ice age...would you rather the glaciers advance again?


----------



## Liminal (Sep 28, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > The Climate change deniers of today will be responsible for the suffering of everyone's children tomorrow.
> ...


Feel free to remain skeptical while the wold burns.


----------



## Crick (Sep 28, 2016)

Just don't expect rational folks who care about their children and the rest of the world to hang with you.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 28, 2016)

Crick said:


> Whatever the cause of your denial, it puts my children and theirs at increased risk of harm.



Because their lack of faith angers your primitive god?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Sep 28, 2016)

Liminal said:


> Why are all climate change deniers so universally ignorant and dishonest?




Ignorant that the climate changes?

What are you a bot stuck on repeat?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 28, 2016)

Liminal said:


> Why are all climate change deniers so universally ignorant and dishonest?



Hansen is a proven fraud, and you have been shown this before,

You are no different than a Charasmatic playing Benny Hinn videos as "proof."


----------



## coldjoint (Sep 28, 2016)

Liminal said:


> The Climate change deniers of today will be responsible for the *suffering of everyone's children tomorrow.*



Better throw Islam in with that.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 28, 2016)

Liminal said:


> [
> 
> Feel free to remain skeptical while the wold burns.



Well, now that the Himalayas are snow and ice free, just as your church predicted, we will have to take you seriously..

Oh wait, not ONE of you fucknut prophecies has come to pass, not even one.

You are discredited cult with less basis in actual science than your brothers, the Scientologists.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Sep 28, 2016)

coldjoint said:


> Better throw Islam in with that.



Islam is excused, because just like the AGW cult, they seek to end Western Civilization. The common goal creates a common bond between Islam and the cult.


----------



## social philosopher (Sep 28, 2016)

Forgive me if I've forgotten the details but recently I watched a program on Science Channel. It was all about a relationship between the overall temperature of a planet and that of it's atmosphere and solar radiation. There were other factors involved. I encourage you to reference the material. Nonetheless, the point was that the warming or cooling of a planet was largely dependent upon these factors. The science I believe was accurate at least as far as it goes. So that much is true. It is also true that human activity has increased the overall temperature of the planet. How anyone with  any sense at all can deny this is inconceivable. Just put yourselves and a bunch of people in a room without heat and see how warm it gets. Simple but nevertheless a demonstration. As far as morality goes. Belief or non belief in such a thing is without moral context.


----------



## westwall (Sep 28, 2016)

Liminal said:


> Why are all climate change deniers so universally ignorant and dishonest?







I find it hilarious that you choose one of the most unethical so called scientists, who has repeatedly falsified his data to support his now failed theories, as your "paragon of virtue".  You sir, are a 'tard of the first order.


----------



## westwall (Sep 28, 2016)

Liminal said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...








Wrong.  The scientific method was developed over centuries to deal with religious fruitcakes like you, who chose "faith" over what they were actually seeing right in front of them.  I live in a cause and effect world.  You don't.


----------



## Liminal (Sep 28, 2016)

westwall said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > Why are all climate change deniers so universally ignorant and dishonest?
> ...


And yet there are no so called scientists disputing the facts of climate change who aren't on an energy corporation payroll.


----------



## westwall (Sep 28, 2016)

Liminal said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...






Which is pure and utter bullshit.

*Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis*

_"It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus._

Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed _Organization Studies_. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem."




Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 28, 2016)

Liminal said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Here is a glimpse into the future for everyone, courtesy of me, PredFan:
> ...



I would place a humongeous bet on the fact that you have no FUCKING IDEA what my skepticism of GW theories are.. In fact -- I'd take a side bet that you aren't really aware what the MANY theories surrounding GW science.

I accept that we have a detected a tiny warming spike over the past 200 years. 300 years ago we were in the "Little Ice Age". I also accept CO2 as a greenhouse gas. And that the man contributed portion since the Industrial Age might account for maybe 40 -- 50 % of the observed warming.

But the REST of the hype and nonsense speculation that perhaps you don't know about -- is why I'm laughing at you putting up emotional people trying to indict me with recitations of Moby Dick. Get a clue.. Your movement has hit the wall. Because of the arrogance of the "science is settled" memes.

And this disgusting attempt to shut down and contaminate the scientific process and make political/moral judgements on anyone that points out the FAILURE of the initial projections and scientific speculation to pan out.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 28, 2016)

Hey Liminal -- putting YOU on the stand here.   Do you believe that the Earth's climate system will literally destroy itself if a "trigger temperature" of say 2degC is reached? Do you accept that part of AGW theory? 

Hey Liminal -- Do you believe that all those proxy temperature studies going back thousands of year, that are based on tree rings, ice cores, mud bug shells have the RESOLUTION and ACCURACY to even FIND the 0.6degC temperature bump that you've seen in your lifetime?  If NOT --- why are they the critical evidence that OUR little temp. bump is LARGER or FASTER than the natural climate variation of the past?? 

Looking forward to YOUR discussion and not you're recycling of political activists in labcoats that exaggerated the initials RISKS of AGW and failed to predict even 20 years into the futures with their simplistic models of the Earth's climate system...


----------



## jc456 (Sep 28, 2016)

Liminal said:


> The Irish Ram said:
> 
> 
> > Feel free not to believe the words that come right out of their own mouths:
> ...


what specific change are you referring to?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 28, 2016)

Crick said:


> Whatever the cause of your denial, it puts my children and theirs at increased risk of harm.


how is that?  you're on here, you drive a car, you heat your home.  hmmm sounds more like you put your own children and risk. you being you is even more critical.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 28, 2016)

Hey Liminal --- Are you aware that NATURE pumps more than 20 times the "man-caused" CO2 into the atmos every year? And that a very large fraction of that CO2 is INDISTINGUISHABLE from the isotopes of "old carbon" that can be found from combusted fossil fuels?

What do YOU actually know about the details of what scientifically attuned people might be "denying"??


----------



## hauke (Sep 28, 2016)

PredFan said:


> Here is a glimpse into the future for everyone, courtesy of me, PredFan:
> 
> The ice caps have not changed from their normal, the polar bears are not gone, the seas have not risen, and the temperature is pretty much the same as now. Basically because global warming/climate change/climate disruption did not occur.
> 
> ...


polar bears have problems because of early ice break of the north polar icecap, greenland ice, the glaciers on greenland are melting faster then any climate scientist predicted, your right climate scientists ARE wrong, climate change happens faster then they predicted.
ocean temperatures as measured are rising faster then predicted, huricanes in the south of the USA are getting bigger faster then predicted.

The koch brothers are getting out of the south of the USA because its dangerouse they want to invest in safer places.

donald trump says theres no climate change and builds dikes to protect his golf course from climate change

your an idiot or evil to say theres no climate change

most important are the insurance companys and their assesment


----------



## Wyatt earp (Sep 28, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> Hey Liminal --- Are you aware that NATURE pumps more than 20 times the "man-caused" CO2 into the atmos every year? And that a very large fraction of that CO2 is INDISTINGUISHABLE from the isotopes of "old carbon" that can be found from combusted fossil fuels?
> 
> What do YOU actually know about the details of what scientifically attuned people might be "denying"??




Hey Fla you have links for that or better yet a book to read?


----------



## hauke (Sep 28, 2016)

if you got a 1 million dollar home on the waterfront of miami, your not getting an insurance


----------



## Wyatt earp (Sep 28, 2016)

hauke said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Here is a glimpse into the future for everyone, courtesy of me, PredFan:
> ...




All that Bullshit in one post? Hey I am still waiting for you to produce a 1902 thermometer that has 10,000 markings on it to read a tenth of a degree


----------



## hauke (Sep 28, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > The Climate change deniers of today will be responsible for the suffering of everyone's children tomorrow.
> ...


yes million of acres of new farmland will be available in the north, while billion of acres in the south are gone


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Sep 28, 2016)

irosie91 said:


> turzovka said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


*Make the Establishments Atrophy Instead*

Those who play God invent societal entropy.


----------



## hauke (Sep 28, 2016)

bear513 said:


> hauke said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...


omg the "thermometers don t work" argument

because you can t take truth


----------



## irosie91 (Sep 28, 2016)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > turzovka said:
> ...



there is no "societal entropy"


----------



## Wyatt earp (Sep 28, 2016)

hauke said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > hauke said:
> ...



Again still waiting.... What is this like the 70th day in a row of you not producing a picture of a 1902 thermometer that reads to the tenth of a degree?


.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Sep 28, 2016)

bear513 said:


> hauke said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...




And again I am talking operator error not the instrument itself .


----------



## irosie91 (Sep 28, 2016)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > turzovka said:
> ...



your post is idiotic


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Sep 28, 2016)

hauke said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...


Really?  Link.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Sep 28, 2016)

The Irish Ram said:


> Feel free not to believe the words that come right out of their own mouths:
> 
> 
> > We distribute, IN REALITY the world's wealth by calling it "climate change"
> ...


*Gaia Gurus Gargle Goop*

How can the Warmalarmies redistribute what they are in the process of destroying?  Second, the Third World is mentally incapable of creating wealth, so exempting it from restrictions won't equalize wealth.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Sep 28, 2016)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > turzovka said:
> ...


*Clues to the Origin of Myths*


----------



## skookerasbil (Sep 28, 2016)

The OP's premise is highly faulty...........the fact is, nobody cares about climate change one way or another!!

Campaign 2016: Nobody Cares About Climate Change | The American Spectator

The Pew Poll from Jan 2016 showed that amongst "voters concerns", "climate change" was beaten out only by "gun control" on a list of 20 concerns.

The alarmist k00ks have been doing this "denier" campaign for about 7 years now........and where has it gotten them?

Renewable energy still a joke in America and the public doesn't give a shit about climate change!! Every poll shows it ( Ive posted up many.......thank you.... ...taking bows )


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Sep 28, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Whatever the cause of your denial, it puts my children and theirs at increased risk of harm.
> ...


*Whoever Controls Language Controls Thought*

Eco-Eunuchs are far more destructive than even you believe.  "Pollution,"  which should be replaced by a neutral term like "byproducts," actually kills harmful microbes and prevents epidemics.  Notice how the dangerous viruses die out as soon as they reach a developed area.  Notice, if you dare, that the last mass-killer, the Spanish influenza, came at a time when auto "pollution" hadn't reached enough strength to wipe it out.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Sep 28, 2016)

social philosopher said:


> Forgive me if I've forgotten the details but recently I watched a program on Science Channel. It was all about a relationship between the overall temperature of a planet and that of it's atmosphere and solar radiation. There were other factors involved. I encourage you to reference the material. Nonetheless, the point was that the warming or cooling of a planet was largely dependent upon these factors. The science I believe was accurate at least as far as it goes. So that much is true. It is also true that human activity has increased the overall temperature of the planet. How anyone with  any sense at all can deny this is inconceivable. Just put yourselves and a bunch of people in a room without heat and see how warm it gets. Simple but nevertheless a demonstration. As far as morality goes. Belief or non belief in such a thing is without moral context.


*Spitting in the Ocean*

It's more like putting ants on the floor of a huge room and seeing how much the temperature changes.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Sep 28, 2016)

westwall said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


*Vindictive Nerd Misfits*

But you deny the cause and effect findings of psychological science that would explain why people become delusional escapist authoritarian GreenHeads.


----------



## westwall (Sep 28, 2016)

The Sage of Main Street said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...








Psychology is a "soft science" so their conclusions are OPINIONS.  Not facts.  Learn the difference.


----------



## SSDD (Sep 28, 2016)

Liminal said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



Do you really think the earth is going to burn?  Have you been that thoroughly duped?  Do you have any idea what the average temperature on earth has ben across its history?....or what the average atmospheric CO2 concentrations have been?


----------



## SSDD (Sep 28, 2016)

social philosopher said:


> It is also true that human activity has increased the overall temperature of the planet.



Got the first bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence to support that claim?.....didn't think so.


----------



## irosie91 (Sep 28, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



I think that the issue is REALLY that even minor changes in
climate and concentrations of this or that gas will have MAJOR
impacts on the DELICATE balance of nature------not that the planet is going to  turn into a ball of fire


----------



## SSDD (Sep 28, 2016)

irosie91 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Liminal said:
> ...



You think nature is in some "DELICATE" balance?  Really?   Look around.  The temperature range on this planet today...at measured stations range from 112.3F at Makka, Saudi Arabia to -92.2F at Vostok, Antarctica.  That is a spread of 204.5 degrees F in one day...today!!!...That hardly suggests a balance of any sort...much less a delicate balance. 

Again...what do you think the average global temperature has been on earth since it developed an atmosphere?  And do you have the first bit of observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence that man's CO2 emissions are altering the global temperature?


----------



## SSDD (Sep 28, 2016)

SSDD said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


----------



## Crick (Sep 28, 2016)

As you've been told repeatedly before, if you'd like some empirical evidence that man's CO2 emissions are the primary cause of the observed warming, simply go to www.ipcc.ch and look for "The Physical Science Basis".  

Your repeated claim that there is no such evidence is ignorant and puerile.


----------



## PredFan (Sep 28, 2016)

Liminal said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Garbage.
> ...



It's the sun stupid!


----------



## PredFan (Sep 28, 2016)

Liminal said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Here is a glimpse into the future for everyone, courtesy of me, PredFan:
> ...



Irrelevant at best, a lie at worst.


----------



## BuckToothMoron (Sep 28, 2016)

Liminal said:


> The Climate change deniers of today will be responsible for the suffering of everyone's children tomorrow.



Really dude, do you expect anybody to watch a video over 100 minutes long before commenting on your post? I'll watch your video as soon as you read thru all these links, maybe-

Friends of Science | The Myths and Facts of Global Warming
Top Ten Reasons Climate Change is a Hoax | Global Climate Scam
31,000 scientists say "no convincing evidence". — OSS Foundation
'Global warming the greatest scam in history' claims founder of Weather Channel
Yes, ‘global warming’ is a hoax and here’s the proof
http://www.globalresearch.ca/copenh...n-facts-and-ten-myths-on-climate-change/16467
Three Facts Prove Climate Alarm Is a Scam


----------



## jc456 (Sep 29, 2016)

Liminal said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Here is a glimpse into the future for everyone, courtesy of me, PredFan:
> ...


I know of no one that doesn't believe climate changes. Your statement means absolutely nothing.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Sep 29, 2016)

westwall said:


> The Sage of Main Street said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


*Not Ready for Prime Time*

Climatology is a descriptive science.  It's for nerds who weren't smart enough to get jobs in the productive sciences.  In other words, the carbon-checkers the Greenies look up to are minor leaguers.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Sep 29, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...





SSDD said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


*Nothing in Nature Is Where It Belongs Unless Man Put It There*

The balance of nature is not in man's favor.  And it is nothing to worship; it is not Nature, like mindless primitives and immature Greenies think of it. By definition, nature is not supernatural. 

 It is our duty to transform it or we won't survive.  The mutant degenerates who believe in Gaia preach the opposite:  by not submitting to Nature, we are bringing on our own destruction.  To this secular theocracy, productive science is the Original Sin.


----------



## Crick (Oct 1, 2016)

Perfect example of shortsighted, self-centered, anti-social ignorance.

Your initial problem is assuming something fundamental separates homo sapiens from the rest of "nature". You go downhill from there.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 2, 2016)

Crick said:


> As you've been told repeatedly before, if you'd like some empirical evidence that man's CO2 emissions are the primary cause of the observed warming, simply go to www.ipcc.ch and look for "The Physical Science Basis".
> 
> Your repeated claim that there is no such evidence is ignorant and puerile.




Sorry guy...we have already been through the facts that you can't find the first bit pf observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence there.  A chart showing the absorptive qualities of radiative gasses is not evidence of anything other than that they absorb IR...there is also an emission chart which shows that they emit and don't retain any energy at all...and you don't have the first experiment that demonstrates that absorption and emission equals heating....what you have is assumptions.

Your claim that there is such evidence is prima facia proof that you are easily fooled.


----------



## Crick (Oct 2, 2016)

I haven't the faintest desire to try to satisfy your insane, nonsensical understandings of basic science.  There's really no point in discussing science with you.  You're way beyond incompetent.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 2, 2016)

Crick said:


> I haven't the faintest desire to try to satisfy your insane, nonsensical understandings of basic science.  There's really no point in discussing science with you.  You're way beyond incompetent.



And you haven't the faintest chance of actually finding any observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supporting the A in AGW....what you posted was not even close, but it did show how easily you were fooled.

So once again,  begin your cycle of lies claiming that you have provided such evidence....you only have one gear....and it is stuck on stupid.


----------



## Crick (Oct 3, 2016)

Except you are the liar here.  Anyone can go to IPCC.ch and see the evidence for themselves.  As they do so, more and more of them will become aware of the quality of your information.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 3, 2016)

Crick said:


> Except you are the liar here.  Anyone can go to IPCC.ch and see the evidence for themselves.  As they do so, more and more of them will become aware of the quality of your information.



We have already been crick...and all that you could bring back was a graphic showing that CO2 absorbs IR...and you didn't even bring the one back showing that CO2 also emits what it absorbs...and you claimed that it represents downward radiation but failed to mention...or perhaps just didn't know that the instrument that gathered the data was cooled to a temperature of about -80C...so what you saw was not downward radiation from the cool atmosphere to the warmer surface of the earth..it was radiation moving from the warmer atmosphere to the cooler instrument...

Downward radiation has never been measured at ambient temperature because it doesn't happen...energy always moves from warm to cool...not the other way around.


----------



## Crick (Oct 3, 2016)

You are so fucking stupid it is beyond belief.  I don't know how you manage to keep the keyboard on the table.  

YO FOLKS, SSDD IS SHOWING OFF HIS SCIENCE KNOWLEDGE AND YOU ALL NEED TO PAY ATTENTION.  IF I'M STANDING NEXT TO MY WIFE AND SHE IS ONE ONE HUNDREDTH OF A DEGREE WARMER THAN I AM, SSDD SAYS I WILL STOP RADIATING TOWARDS HER.  That's because my body can tell what her temperature is. correcting my sensations for the color of her clothing and skin and the effect of the air between us.  In fact, in SSDD's view, a lump of rock can tell the temperature of another rock on a planet orbiting a star in the Andromeda Galaxy INSTANTLY.

Anyone who listens to this man for science information is doing themselves an enormous disservice.  He's a fucking idiot.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 3, 2016)

SSDD said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


or even why it's important to know a global temperature when one can't read the temperatures globally?


----------



## LaDexter (Oct 3, 2016)

Whoever wrote the title of this thread is fully qualified as a SUB HUMAN.


Nobody denies that the climate changes.  What we deny is that somehow fudge, fraud, and endless parroting equals proof for a theory with precisely no evidence to support it.


Why does one Earth polar circle have 9 times the ice of the other?

If Co2 is melting Arctic Sea Ice, why is Antarctic Sea ICe growing?

During the past million years, Greenland froze while North America thawed, all at the same time on the same planet with the same atmosphere with the same amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, proving that CO2 had precisely NOTHING to do with either event....


----------



## SSDD (Oct 3, 2016)

Crick said:


> You are so fucking stupid it is beyond belief.  I don't know how you manage to keep the keyboard on the table.
> 
> YO FOLKS, SSDD IS SHOWING OFF HIS SCIENCE KNOWLEDGE AND YOU ALL NEED TO PAY ATTENTION.  IF I'M STANDING NEXT TO MY WIFE AND SHE IS ONE ONE HUNDREDTH OF A DEGREE WARMER THAN I AM, SSDD SAYS I WILL STOP RADIATING TOWARDS HER.  That's because my body can tell what her temperature is. correcting my sensations for the color of her clothing and skin and the effect of the air between us.  In fact, in SSDD's view, a lump of rock can tell the temperature of another rock on a planet orbiting a star in the Andromeda Galaxy INSTANTLY.
> 
> Anyone who listens to this man for science information is doing themselves an enormous disservice.  He's a fucking idiot.




Sorry crick but alas, it is you who is to stupid for words....if you accept the existence of photons that zip about at the speed of light, then you must accept that from their point of view, the distance between their point of origin and their destination is zero and the time to reach that destination is also zero...the energy movement via radiation is the same as the energy movement via conduction....energy always conducts along a temperature gradient...from warm to cool...there is no such thing as  back conduction...energy doesn't attempt to move from cooler areas of the material to warmer areas of the material because the distance between the two gradients is zero...the energy always migrates to the cooler regions...the distance from here to there from a photon's point of view is zero...same as for energy moving via conduction...and the time to get there is zero...same as for energy moving via conduction.

Now in so far as a photon's point of view...are you denying that the distance from a rock here on this planet to another rock on the planet in the Andromeda galaxy is zero?...is that what you are denying?...and are you also denying that the time it takes to get from one rock to the other, from the photon's point of view is also zero?...are you really denying that?  Go ahead...say it...


----------



## LaDexter (Oct 3, 2016)

Crick said:


> He's a fucking idiot.




That's a huge improvement over what constitutes your supporters, who aren't even human because they cannot think, because all they ever do is...


----------



## Crick (Oct 5, 2016)

Crick said:


> You are so fucking stupid it is beyond belief.  I don't know how you manage to keep the keyboard on the table.
> 
> YO FOLKS, SSDD IS SHOWING OFF HIS SCIENCE KNOWLEDGE AND YOU ALL NEED TO PAY ATTENTION.  IF I'M STANDING NEXT TO MY WIFE AND SHE IS ONE ONE HUNDREDTH OF A DEGREE WARMER THAN I AM, SSDD SAYS I WILL STOP RADIATING TOWARDS HER.  That's because my body can tell what her temperature is. correcting my sensations for the color of her clothing and skin and the effect of the air between us.  In fact, in SSDD's view, a lump of rock can tell the temperature of another rock on a planet orbiting a star in the Andromeda Galaxy INSTANTLY.
> 
> Anyone who listens to this man for science information is doing themselves an enormous disservice.  He's a fucking idiot.





SSDD said:


> Sorry crick but alas, it is you who is to stupid for words....if you accept the existence of photons that zip about at the speed of light, then you must accept that from their point of view, the distance between their point of origin and their destination is zero and the time to reach that destination is also zero..



You just learned this little tidbit of relativity, didn't you.  There's no other explanation for your sudden excitement.  The Lorentz Transforms were penned before the turn of last century numbnuts.  



SSDD said:


> .the energy movement via radiation is the same as the energy movement via conduction....energy always conducts along a temperature gradient...from warm to cool...there is no such thing as  back conduction...energy doesn't attempt to move from cooler areas of the material to warmer areas of the material because the distance between the two gradients is zero...the energy always migrates to the cooler regions



You're a complete fool.  All matter radiates all the time in all directions. All your discussions are STUPID misinterpretations of net flow.  Truly stupid.  They require all the insane nonsense I and several others have stated.  You'd need all matter able to throttle and aim its own emissions, smart photons and  routine violations of special relativity.  If none of that makes you think you might be looking at radiative heat transfer the wrong way, there's not a fucking thing we can do to help you because you've CHOSEN to be this stupid. 



SSDD said:


> ...the distance from here to there from a photon's point of view is zero...same as for energy moving via conduction...and the time to get there is zero...same as for energy moving via conduction.


 You believe conduction happens instantaneously?  Conduction doesn't involve photons you know... You didn't know, did you.  I guess you can impress the other furniture movers at the water cooler with this stuff, but don't let that ever give you the impression that you have the faintest fuck of an idea what's actually going on.



SSDD said:


> Now in so far as a photon's point of view...are you denying that the distance from a rock here on this planet to another rock on the planet in the Andromeda galaxy is zero?...is that what you are denying?...and are you also denying that the time it takes to get from one rock to the other, from the photon's point of view is also zero?...are you really denying that?  Go ahead...say it...



No time passes for a photon, that is absolutely true.  But apparently you haven't thought out the actual repercussions of that point.  If no time passes, nothing can happen.  No event can take place.  No change can occur. If you think Lorentz time dilation has rescued your insanity from violating relativity... you were wrong. You're still fucked and still fucking stupid.


----------



## IanC (Oct 7, 2016)

jc456 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > irosie91 said:
> ...




Great question JC!

There are many temperatures that can be measured on Earth at any one time. From about minus 100C to perhaps 2000C for an active volcano. Pretty big range.

You guys think thermodynamic laws apply to atomic scale particles. What do you think is the range of pseudo temperatures in a cubic centimeter of air at sea level (you pick the location, it doesn't really matter)? Some molecules are stopped dead in their tracks for minus 273C, others are bumped up to many multiples of the average speed.

See why I scoff at SSDD'S magical Maxwell's Daemon knowing the temperature of every particle in the universe and then choosing which internally driven actions are allowed and in what direction? It is preposterous.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 8, 2016)

IanC said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


so the question actually was why do we need to know a global temperature? We all know that temperatures vary around the globe,  It's fairly simple to know why.  and therefore the question is,....so?


----------



## irosie91 (Oct 8, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



the  "so"  depends on the effects that the temperature fluctuations have on  ---_DA FLORA AND FAUNA


----------



## IanC (Oct 8, 2016)

irosie91 said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...




So far the effects of increased temperature and CO2 have been positive. More plant life supports more animal life.


----------



## irosie91 (Oct 8, 2016)

IanC said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



"so far"  ------I am not able to PREDICT  just HOW the
alterations in atmosphere and temperature will pan out---
but based on the delicate balance determined over hundreds of thousands of years------any fluctuation is cause for concern.     Some people believe that the situation will be thrown TOO far off kilter.     I would not expect a significant rise in CO2 to actually HELP all of our flora thrive gloriously


----------



## jc456 (Oct 8, 2016)

irosie91 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > irosie91 said:
> ...


Well for me, I'd prefer to see evidence that CO2 has magic powers. Four years in here, Zero evidence provided.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 8, 2016)

irosie91 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > irosie91 said:
> ...


The earth has survived CO2 levels above 7,000ppm...  The kind of change needed to "throw" the earth off its game is going to be a whole lot more than man burning everything on earth...


----------



## irosie91 (Oct 8, 2016)

jc456 said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



CO2  has VERY MAGICAL POWERS-------try googling what happens to a  HUMAN BEAN----who,  because of respiratory
problem----ie--lung problems   RETAINS CO2.     CO2 also
kinda acidifies the---"situation"         Want to die?   ("god"  forbid)   put yourself in a sealed room and pump it full or CO2---you will need a one way valve to let the O2 out

on the other hand----without  CO2-----where would PEPSI be?


----------



## IanC (Oct 8, 2016)

irosie91 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > irosie91 said:
> ...


Warmer temps, increased CO2 (plant food). Kinda sounds like a commercial greenhouse for growing food and flowers, doesn't it?


----------



## irosie91 (Oct 8, 2016)

IanC said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



sorry----only very simplistically and superficially------O2   Nitrogen,  CO2  balance is not all that simple


----------



## jc456 (Oct 8, 2016)

IanC said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


The only accurate part of that was plant food. Verified


----------



## jc456 (Oct 8, 2016)

irosie91 said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > irosie91 said:
> ...


Sorry, but nope


----------



## Crick (Oct 14, 2016)

jc456 said:


> irosie91 said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Why do you think the world's scientists - essentially every single one of them - disagree with you JC?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 14, 2016)

Liminal said:


> The Climate change deniers of today will be responsible for the suffering of everyone's children tomorrow.



No they won't.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 14, 2016)

Liminal said:


> The Climate change deniers of today will be responsible for the suffering of everyone's children tomorrow.



Treasury bonds are worthless subprime mortgages? LOL!
It's good to see his errors aren't limited to climate.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 15, 2016)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > irosie91 said:
> ...



They don't....the claim that they do is just the lie you guys tell when faced with a lack of actual evidence to make your case....there are more logical fallacies in the pro AGW argument than there are flies on a garbage truck.


----------



## Crick (Oct 15, 2016)

Show us evidence that a huge majority of the world's scientists do not believe CO2, via the greenhouse effect, warms the planet.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 20, 2016)

Crick said:


> Show us evidence that a huge majority of the world's scientists do not believe CO2, via the greenhouse effect, warms the planet.



The fact that the large scientific bodies and academies don't take a vote from their membership is evidence enough...the one political head that tried it very soon regretted the action...


----------



## IanC (Oct 20, 2016)

Crick said:


> Show us evidence that a huge majority of the world's scientists do not believe CO2, via the greenhouse effect, warms the planet.




probably 99.999% of scientists believe the GHE makes surface temperatures warmer than without GHGs.

that does not mean that 99.999% of scientists believe in the catastrophic predictions of AGW alarmists.


----------



## Crick (Oct 21, 2016)

I don't know where deniers got "catastrophic".  Global warming is going to fuck a lot of people up for a very long time and at tremendous expense.  But whether or not it is "catastrophic" is semantic bullshit.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 21, 2016)

Crick said:


> I don't know where deniers got "catastrophic".  Global warming is going to fuck a lot of people up for a very long time and at tremendous expense.  But whether or not it is "catastrophic" is semantic bullshit.


or not.


----------



## Crick (Oct 21, 2016)

What do YOU mean when you use the term jc?


----------



## IanC (Oct 21, 2016)

Crick said:


> I don't know where deniers got "catastrophic".  Global warming is going to fuck a lot of people up for a very long time and at tremendous expense.  But whether or not it is "catastrophic" is semantic bullshit.




hahahahahahaha.....

Irony alert. someone who says "I don't know where deniers got "catastrophic", and then goes on to add "Global warming is going to fuck a lot of people up for a very long time and at tremendous expense".

hahahahahahahaha.....


----------



## jc456 (Oct 21, 2016)

Crick said:


> What do YOU mean when you use the term jc?


what term are you referring to?


----------



## Crick (Oct 21, 2016)

IanC said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know where deniers got "catastrophic".  Global warming is going to fuck a lot of people up for a very long time and at tremendous expense.  But whether or not it is "catastrophic" is semantic bullshit.
> ...



But mainstream science never used the term "catastrophic anthropogenic global warming".  It was an invention (a red herring/straw man) of the deniers.


----------



## Crick (Oct 21, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > What do YOU mean when you use the term jc?
> ...



Short term memory loss?

*C A T A S T R O P H I C*


----------



## jc456 (Oct 21, 2016)

Crick said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...


I don't use it for anything with regard to global warming.  It is the zealots like you in here who believe the earth is headed to it's doom.  That seems catastrophic don't you think?  melting ice, nothing but posts about catastrophic results, doom, the earth as we know it will change.  Huh?  what the fk does that even mean?  face it doom and gloom catastrophe is all AGW is about.


----------



## IanC (Oct 21, 2016)

Crick said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...




there is a continuum of opinion on AGW. at one end are the rabid deniers who just say 'no' to everything. at the other end are rabid alarmists who see disaster in every direction. 

mainstream skeptics such as myself believe that there has been warming, that CO2 has increased, and that CO2 has a warming influence.

concensus science believes that there has been warming, that CO2 has increased, and that CO2 has a warming influence.

we all believe the same things, right? well, not quite. the alarmists choose to publicize the worst case scenarios every time. if the IPCC give a range of temperature increase for 2100 of 1-6C then they go with 3.5C or higher even though the pdf (probability density function) is closer to 2C. if the IPCC sea level predictions are 0.1meter to 1.0 meter then they go with over half a meter, sometimes even one or two meters. even though the probability is only 8-16 inches.

I will give an example. a few years back there was a (fucking proxy) reconstruction of Ocean Heat Content for the last few thousand years. what was the news story? fastest increase in OHC evah for the last 50 years! was it really the fastest ever, or do we just have instruments to measure it now? what did the rest of the OHC record show? THAT OHC WAS AT THE LOWEST LEVEL IN THE ENTIRE RECONSTRUCTION UNTIL IT STARTED RISING AGAIN IN THE 20TH CENTURY! for thousands of years OHC was steadily decreasing, perhaps forshadowing an impending ice age. was that mentioned? no. was it mentioned that present OHC was still lower than 1000 years ago? no.

the world is greening up and growing more plants because of CO2 and temperature increases. a measured benefit. yet the media and alarmists say, it will be catastrophic real soon now.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 21, 2016)

IanC said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


Ian, I would actually like to understand why it's important to track something that isn't capable of being tracked. Mainly a  global temperature.  What is the value behind it except to fear monger poor and naive people?  If Chicago's temperatures haven't increased since 1980 how is it that we merely ignore that fact?  Why is it most global temperature highs were back in the 1800s?  It is a meaningless effort to grab 2100 temperature stations and state that the readings off of these is the globe.  How fking stupid is that. 

There is only one thing going on, and that is to put the fear of gawd in people who are naive to earth's weather.  and the money hungry political faction that wants to rule the world who want to stomp on the poor. and to rid the world of oil.

Whether it is 85 degrees F today and then 50 degrees F tomorrow, what does that mean? temps fluctuate?  yep and there is a reason and explained on the weather forecasts with highs and lows and many other variables.  but so what?  It doesn't stop baseball games, football games or any activities one has to do. 

Someone wants to yell the sky is falling i'm going to ask that someone to prove it. end of story. someone wants to say heat is falling from the atmosphere, I will laugh. fly 30,000 feet in an airplane and the temps there are below freezing. money, money money. and it's tied to one group and one group only.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Oct 21, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



*Ian, I would actually like to understand why it's important to track something that isn't capable of being tracked. Mainly a global temperature.*

To push the scam. AGW, as is currently being pushed, is a scam.

That doesn't change the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Back radiation actually exists.
Photons travel from cool to warm and warm to cool and between objects with identical temperatures, because photons don't know (and wouldn't care if they did) the temperature of the matter they travel toward.


----------



## IanC (Oct 21, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...




Information and data are good. You never know what you might find. Science.

Climate science has become somewhat corrupt. Information and data are collected to buttress theories, not to refine or redesign them. Not science.


----------



## AZGAL (Oct 21, 2016)

Some social conservatives like me appreciate science, including environmental science.


----------



## IanC (Oct 22, 2016)

AZGAL said:


> Some social conservatives like me appreciate science, including environmental science.




Lots of people of all political stripes appreciate science.

Paul Watson, of GreenPeace fame, has spoken out on the exaggerations and errors of AGW alarmism. he wants us to stop wasting money on imaginary threats and return to action on real problems


----------



## Crick (Oct 30, 2016)

You undermine your own argument when you attempt to associate Watson with Greenpeace.  Much like ID folks claiming Feynmann rejected evolution.


----------

