# Leading  Climate Scientist, Dr Peiser, "we Should All Be Relieved That It Isn’t Such A Big Problem A



## skookerasbil (Oct 5, 2014)

Dr Benny Peiser says public are more sceptical about climate change and global warming Nature News Daily Express

One word = *Ooooooooooooooooooops!!!!
*
So......here you have a world renowned climate science expert stating that the AGW community has been exaggerating the threat posed by global warming.

He goes on to say, 

*"Something is clearly balancing out the warming effect of the CO2 [carbon dioxide]," he explained.
"It might be natural factors, it might be the ocean, no one knows for sure.
"It [the warming] could start anytime - and that is an indication that we don’t fully understand the climate.
"That’s a reality that most climate scientists are reluctant to admit."*





Like Ive been saying forever........we got a lot of phonies in this forum.


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 5, 2014)

Of course the public is skeptical......which is why you go check any poll on peoples concerns and you have to go waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay down the list to find global warming as a concern.




These fuckers are losing BIG.,


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 5, 2014)

Ask me if I'm spiking the football???


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 5, 2014)

More sobering reality as stated by Dr Peiser......oh, and you know this shit stings the AGW k00ks......blows up their whole Disney Bubble >>>



*Looking to the future, Dr Peiser is adamant there is no easy **solution** to tackling global warming - something he does not expect to see change for a long time.
With regards to the next UN Climate Change Conference, he said that it will be all "lip service" and "**business** as usual".
"I’m pretty sure there will be some sort of agreement, there have always been agreements at every UN summit, but they're not worth the paper they are written on.
"They won’t be legally binding and it won’t mean that the Chinese, or the Indians, or the Brazilians, or the Russians, will cut CO2 emissions."*






Of course, the epic thread on this forum, *MORE PROOF THE SKEPTICS ARE WINNING* documents scores of links backing up what Dr Peiser is saying.


----------



## Mr. H. (Oct 5, 2014)

No matter. Politicians and public alike will continue to call for the massive unemployment that will ensue from shuttering the coal industry, taxing the oil and gas industries, and raising utility costs through the roof.


----------



## S.J. (Oct 5, 2014)

Silence from the left.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 5, 2014)

Benny Peiser DeSmogBlog

Benny Peiser is a past Senior Lecturer in Social Anthropology & Sport Sociology at Liverpool John Moores University. He is a “historian and anthropologist with particular research interest in neo-catastrophism and its implications for human and societal evolution.” [3], [4]

Benny Peiser is also the director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWFP), a “all-party and non-party think tank and registered educational charity” founded by Nigel Lawson. [5]

The foundation describes it's main purpose as being to “bring reason, integrity and balance to a debate that has become seriously unbalanced, irrationally alarmist, and all too often depressingly intolerant… . Our main focus is to analyse global warming policies and its economic and other implications. Our aim is to provide the most robust and reliable economic analysis and advice.”

Although the group does not disclose their funding sources, they claim to be “funded entirely by voluntary donations from a number of private individuals and charitable trusts.”  The organization also claims that it does not “accept gifts from either energy companies or anyone with a significant interest in an energy company.”

Peiser is also listed as the co-editor of the skeptical journal _Energy and Environment_, also edited by Sonja-Boehmer Christiansen.

_Energy and Environment_ has been described as the place climate change skeptics go to when they are rejected by the mainstream peer-reviewed science publications. The journal has also drawn sharp criticism for their abuse of the peer-review process, including one from Michael Mann regarding a questionable study co-authored by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas.

*He is a social scientist, specializing in sports. No way is he an expert in climate. Pure garbage post.*


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 5, 2014)

*Benny Peiser - SourceWatch

Benny Peiser* (b. 1957) is a UK social anthropologist and AGW denier listed among the Heartland Institute"Global warming experts" despite having no evident expertise in climate science or policy. Peiser is Director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), and as of fall 2011, he is a Visiting Fellow at the right wingUniversity of Buckingham, whose current and former vice chancellors serve on the GWPF academic advisory council.

*JMU department was Social Anthropology & Sport Sociology*
Peiser's John Moores University departmental webpage described him as:-[2]


Senior Lecturer in Social Anthropology & Sport Sociology, Liverpool John Moores University
Main research interests:
societal evolution and neo-catastrophism
social implications of historical impact disasters and the current impact hazard
ritualised and sanctioned violence
origins and evolution of sport

*No evident expertise in Climate Science or Climate Policy Analysis*
Although Peiser is described by Local Transport Today as a 'climate policy analyst',[3] it is unclear what academic expertise Peiser brings to bear on his climate policy analyses.

*No peer reviewed climate publications*
According to a search of 22,000 academic journals, Peiser has published 3 research papers in peer-reviewed journals: Sports Medicine, 2006; Journal of Sports Sciences (2004); and, Bioastronomy 2002: life among the stars (2004). None of these studies are related to human-induced climate change.

*No credentials in climate science, no publications. *


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 6, 2014)

Well......its always the MO of the AGW crowd to kneejerk on the background of any scientist that doesn't concur with the established narrative.......its always been that way. Like the guy is some kind of dummy.

But nobody can dismiss his conclusion......that the public has become highly skeptical of "climate science". No way of getting around it. As Ive said many times, the strategy of the climate science crowd is make bold predictions on future climate events like a quarterback throws a hail Mary pass and hope it sticks. Some do.......many don't. People have obviously been keeping score. Peiser has that nailed. It is very clear that the folks have tuned out the science in 2014.......its not even debatable. Every poll shows that a vast majority don't care. Peiser is simply connecting the dots for us on the reality.......he just doesn't concur with the rigged consensus, and lets face it, it is indeed a rigged consensus. The folks have figured out that there are special interests associated with the "climate science" community and a majority of people ( by polling estimated to be near 70% ) think that the data has been rigged by the scientists.


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 6, 2014)

Global surveys show environmental concerns rank low among public concerns


69 Say It s Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research - Rasmussen Reports trade 


And to back Peiser.......a peer reviewed study shows >>>>

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




slam dunkage...........


----------



## mamooth (Oct 6, 2014)

Skook, you ought to be apologizing for lying so brazenly in your OP by calling Peiser a "leading climate scientist". Did you lie deliberately, or were you just a moron parrot again?

Until you admit you lied, apologize for it and promise to do better, why should everyone not simply assume everything you post is a lie?


----------



## R.D. (Oct 6, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Skook, you ought to be apologizing for lying so brazenly in your OP by calling Peiser a "leading climate scientist". Did you lie deliberately, or were you just a moron parrot again?
> 
> Until you admit you lied, apologize for it and promise to do better, why should everyone not simply assume everything you post is a lie?


THAT'S the best you got?  

Why even bother to get out of bed?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 6, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Benny Peiser DeSmogBlog
> 
> Benny Peiser is a past Senior Lecturer in Social Anthropology & Sport Sociology at Liverpool John Moores University. He is a “historian and anthropologist with particular research interest in neo-catastrophism and its implications for human and societal evolution.” [3], [4]
> 
> ...



The "experts" in Climate "Science" are all saying, "the Pacific Ocean ate my Global Warming"


----------



## jc456 (Oct 6, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Skook, you ought to be apologizing for lying so brazenly in your OP by calling Peiser a "leading climate scientist". Did you lie deliberately, or were you just a moron parrot again?
> 
> Until you admit you lied, apologize for it and promise to do better, why should everyone not simply assume everything you post is a lie?


 Liar!!!!


----------



## jc456 (Oct 6, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> *Benny Peiser - SourceWatch
> 
> Benny Peiser* (b. 1957) is a UK social anthropologist and AGW denier listed among the Heartland Institute"Global warming experts" despite having no evident expertise in climate science or policy. Peiser is Director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), and as of fall 2011, he is a Visiting Fellow at the right wingUniversity of Buckingham, whose current and former vice chancellors serve on the GWPF academic advisory council.
> 
> ...


 So what's your point and do you ever have a point?


----------



## Bfgrn (Oct 6, 2014)

skookerasbil said:


> Well......its always the MO of the AGW crowd to kneejerk on the background of any scientist that doesn't concur with the established narrative.......its always been that way. Like the guy is some kind of dummy.
> 
> But nobody can dismiss his conclusion......that the public has become highly skeptical of "climate science". No way of getting around it. As Ive said many times, the strategy of the climate science crowd is make bold predictions on future climate events like a quarterback throws a hail Mary pass and hope it sticks. Some do.......many don't. People have obviously been keeping score. Peiser has that nailed. It is very clear that the folks have tuned out the science in 2014.......its not even debatable. Every poll shows that a vast majority don't care. Peiser is simply connecting the dots for us on the reality.......he just doesn't concur with the rigged consensus, and lets face it, it is indeed a rigged consensus. The folks have figured out that there are special interests associated with the "climate science" community and a majority of people ( by polling estimated to be near 70% ) think that the data has been rigged by the scientists.



SCIENTIST?

*Educational background*
Peiser was educated in West Germany and studied political science, English, and sports science in Frankfurt


----------



## mamooth (Oct 6, 2014)

jc456 said:
			
		

> So what's your point and do you ever have a point



Again, the point is Skook lied, and that you're now kissing his ass in an attempt to defend the lie.

It's your unoffically assigned job here now, to reflexively leap in and asskiss other deniers when they get in trouble. You've gotten quite good at it.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 6, 2014)

mamooth said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I like how you keep proving you have nothing useful to say.  You sir provide a link to an experiment that shows what 120 PPM of CO2 can do to the climate or shut the F up.  I'm actually growing tired of your pointless posts.  You have nothing to say!!!!


----------



## mamooth (Oct 6, 2014)

Stop deflecting. The topic is Skook lying.

Do you endorse the lie, or condemn it?

Rhetorical question. You're asskissing routine makes it very clear you endorse the lie.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 6, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Stop deflecting. The topic is Skook lying.
> 
> Do you endorse the lie, or condemn it?
> 
> Rhetorical question. You're asskissing routine makes it very clear you endorse the lie.


No I don't endorse your lie.  I think you are one of the biggest asskissers there is.  I think you are an absolute fool and have no basis for any references here.  you have and continue to ignore the original question that was sent your way and that was to provide the evidence of your claim.  you failed nothing more is needed on our side until that information is made available.


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 6, 2014)

mamooth said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

Hey......so now the AGW k00ks have resorted to calling skeptics liars even after they have quoted the headline from the article??!!!

Hey....they saying "expert" pwns your shit s0n. To you and all your k00k-ass pals, if you dont buy in to the established rigged narrative, you're a liar.

You are one sorry pos s0n......a fag deserved of being smacked upside of the head, and many times.


But heres the thing.............all we get from these AGW nutters is opinion and conjecture ( check any of Mamooth's posts.....three sentences or so, always mocking the OP or the previous poster........exceedingly short on substance. )


----------



## NLT (Oct 6, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Skook, you ought to be apologizing for lying so brazenly in your OP by calling Peiser a "leading climate scientist". Did you lie deliberately, or were you just a moron parrot again?
> 
> Until you admit you lied, apologize for it and promise to do better, *why should everyone not simply assume everything you post is a lie*?



We assume that about you every time you post.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 6, 2014)

NLT said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Skook, you ought to be apologizing for lying so brazenly in your OP by calling Peiser a "leading climate scientist". Did you lie deliberately, or were you just a moron parrot again?
> ...


 Naw, I don't assume!


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 6, 2014)

Back to topic..........

The climate nutters see more and more of this stuff every day and their heads are exploding ( just look at the posts on this page alone!! )

Theyve been screaming bloody blue murder for 20 years and it hasnt netted them dick except for "Environment" forums on public message boards. US oil production is at record levels.......US gas is being imported into Germany - epic levels.........solar power makes up 0.2% of our energy.......zero significant climate legislation in almost 10 years...........climate summits that nobody cares about..............scores of climate models failing............renewable energy predictions by all experts to be at 10% maximum by 2040........arctic ice almost doubling in size.........zero warming for the past 216 months.......major climate events predicted but not happening............69% of the public saying the scientists have rigged the data..........global warming #21 out of 22 on the list of public cpone

Now......if you are a committed climate k00k, how are you feeling these days??


----------



## Bfgrn (Oct 6, 2014)

skookerasbil said:


> Back to topic..........
> 
> The climate nutters see more and more of this stuff every day and their heads are exploding ( just look at the posts on this page alone!! )
> 
> ...



The only nutters and K00KS are pea brains like you...

sk00kerasbil said: So......*here you have a world renowned climate science expert *stating that the AGW community has been exaggerating the threat posed by global warming.

HERE is your world renowned climate science *'expert'*

Educational background
Peiser was educated in West Germany and studied political science, English, and sports science in Frankfurt

Hey pea brain, go back to your linked article and check out this link on the left hand ledger...

*Arctic ice cap is in a 'death spiral', claims leading academic*

*THE Arctic ice cap is in a "death spiral" a leading academic claimed after returning from a research voyage.*






Peter Wadhams, professor of ocean physics at Cambridge University, said that the ice cap has now melted so much that open water is now just 350 miles form the North Pole.

This is the shortest distance ever recorded.

He added: "The Arctic ice cap is in a death spiral."

Professor Wadhams measured the thickness of the Arctic sea ice by sending a remote-control mini-submarine under the floes.

He said: "On average it was about 0.8 metres thick, compared with five metres when I first went in 1976.

more

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How does your 'world renowned climate science expert' explain that...Eskimos with Bic lighters pea brain???


----------



## jc456 (Oct 6, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Back to topic..........
> ...


 hahahahaahahahhaahahhahahhahahaa... LoSiNg


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 7, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Back to topic..........
> ...



What is it with you alarmist morons and your warming hype..  

"This is the shortest distance ever recorded."   

How long have wee been keeping records?  135 years
How old is the earth?  4.6 billion years
How many times has the north pole been ice free? Thousands

What the fuck is the problem?  Its happened many, many times... only not this time.  The Antarctic and now the Arctic is gaining massive amounts of ice.


----------



## Bfgrn (Oct 8, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...



Hey Einstein, if we have only been keeping records for 135 years, WHAT data do you have to back up your claim that the north pole has been ice free thousands of time? Eskimos with Bic lighters told you so?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Oct 8, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...




It has stabilized in the past 5 years.


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 8, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Back to topic..........
> ...





Hmmm.............but you missed post #24 s0n......all indisputable. All you AGW k00ks live in this intellectual bubble that nobody else cares about. In the real world, evidently everybody is siding with Dr Peiser. In other words, that bubble gets smaller and smaller. The AGW "experts" have not netted dick for the climate crusaders, as post #24 illustrates like a Tomahawk missile hitting an ISIS Toyota truck!!


----------



## Bfgrn (Oct 8, 2014)

skookerasbil said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...



All without links...why is that pea brain? Because they all trace back to the same sources...the “Flat Earth society”

The dark money in climate change - The Washington Post


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 8, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Hey Einstein, if we have only been keeping records for 135 years, WHAT data do you have to back up your claim that the north pole has been ice free thousands of time? Eskimos with Bic lighters told you so?



I wonder if you have ever seen a Paleo-Climate reconstruction from sediments in the arctic...??  Can you tell me how old the Ice is?

Here is a hint, The Arctic was ice free just 7,500-6,500 years ago..  Because it was WARMER!!!


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 8, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Too Funny...  You used a George Soros funded Media Splatters link..  AS PROOF!


----------



## Synthaholic (Oct 8, 2014)

skookerasbil said:


> *So......here you have a world renowned climate science expert *stating that the AGW community has been exaggerating the threat posed by global warming.



You are one dumb motherfucker.


Peiser established the Cambridge Conference Network in 1997. *Peiser acknowledges that he is "not a climate scientist" and has "never claimed to be one."*

*Education:* PhD Cultural Studies


Benny Peiser - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 9, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Hey Einstein, if we have only been keeping records for 135 years, WHAT data do you have to back up your claim that the north pole has been ice free thousands of time? Eskimos with Bic lighters told you so?
> ...



You state the Arctic was ice free 7000 years ago. Link please, or are we dealing with another asshole claim?


----------



## Bfgrn (Oct 9, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...



The Washington Post?


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 9, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...





Actually......pea brain provides LOTS and LOTS of links......right here >>>

More Proof the skeptics are WINNING US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum



Epic levels of links in fact......*110,000 views* of this thread pwn all drivel posted by the k00ks.!!!



The AGW k00ks have been screaming bloody blue murder for 20 years and it hasnt netted them dick except for "Environment" forums on public message boards. Indeed.....in 2014, "climate change" is nothing but an internet hobby.....

*US oil production is at record levels*.......*US gas is being imported into Germany - epic levels*.........*solar power makes up 0.2% of our energy*.......*zero significant climate legislation in almost 10 years*...........*climate summits that nobody cares about*..............*scores of climate models failing*............*renewable energy predictions by all experts to be at 10% maximum by 2040*........*arctic ice almost doubling in size*.........*zero warming for the past 216 months*.......*major climate events predicted but not happening*............*69% of the public saying the scientists have rigged the data*..........*global warming #21 out of 22 on* *the lists of public concerns........coal imports to Europe soaring.........*





And this just the tip othe iceberg. Laughable stuff throughout the *WINNING* thread.







So many as to make a AGW k00k's head explode!!! *168 pages* worth of "scorched earth" landscape that the climate change mental cases navigate in 2014.




Shit......even Judith Curry, foremost authority on climate change, has now publically stated the k00ks are doing it wrong!!!


duh


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 9, 2014)

Dr. Curry is hardly the foremost authority on climate change.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 9, 2014)

*When a political party starts losing people like this, then it is a downhill slide from there. *

The Coming GOP Civil War Over Climate Change - NationalJournal.com

May 9, 2013 Kerry Emanuel registered as a Republican as soon he turned 18, in 1973. The aspiring scientist was turned off by what he saw as the Left’s blind ideology. “I had friends who denied Pol Pot was killing people in Cambodia,” he says. “I reacted very badly to the triumph of ideology over reason.”

Back then, Emanuel saw the Republican Party as the political fit for a data-driven scientist. Today, the professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology is considered one of the United States’ foremost authorities on climate change—particularly on how rising carbon pollution will increase the intensity of hurricanes.

In January 2012, just before South Carolina’s Republican presidential primary, the Charleston-based Christian Coalition of America, one of the most influential advocacy groups in conservative politics, flew Emanuel down to meet with the GOP presidential candidates. Perhaps an unlikely prophet of doom where global warming is concerned, the coalition has begun to push Republicans to take action on climate change, out of worry that coming catastrophes could hit the next generation hard, especially the world’s poor.

The meetings didn’t take. “[Newt] Gingrich and [Mitt] Romney understood, … and I think they even believed the evidence and understood the risk,” Emanuel says. “But they were so terrified by the extremists in their party that in the primaries they felt compelled to deny it. Which is not good leadership, good integrity. I got a low impression of them as leaders.” Throughout the Republican presidential primaries, every candidate but one—former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, who was knocked out of the race at the start—questioned, denied, or outright mocked the science of climate change.

Soon after his experience in South Carolina, Emanuel changed his lifelong Republican Party registration to independent. “The idea that you could look a huge amount of evidence straight in the face and, for purely ideological reasons, deny it, is anathema to me,” he says.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 9, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> *When a political party starts losing people like this, then it is a downhill slide from there. *
> 
> The Coming GOP Civil War Over Climate Change - NationalJournal.com
> 
> ...


 Really? hahahahhahahahahhahhaaha what LoSiNg you exhibit!!!!!!


----------



## Synthaholic (Oct 9, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Really? hahahahhahahahahhahhaaha what LoSiNg you exhibit!!!!!!


^^^ Another for my ignore list.  They are piling up, sort of like piles of...


----------



## jc456 (Oct 9, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Really? hahahahhahahahahhahhaaha what LoSiNg you exhibit!!!!!!
> ...


 thanks,


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 9, 2014)

Synthaholic said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Really? hahahahhahahahahhahhaaha what LoSiNg you exhibit!!!!!!
> ...


 

Typical move by the modern lefty.......when your shit is getting pwned, throw in the towel and whine like hell. Happens to me perosn to person with these meatheads for the past 30 years.........fold like a cheap wallet.....walk away from the debate, "OMG......I cant even deal with your righties"

Translation?

Ive just gotten my clock cleaned and now my head is exploding!@!

The gayest thing I see on these forums are these chessedick limpwristers putting people on "ignore".

They'd last maybe a week in my field of work.........


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 9, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Dr. Curry is hardly the foremost authority on climate change.


 
Ray....not for nothing but you post up that vid of her all the time!!!


----------



## jc456 (Oct 9, 2014)

skookerasbil said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


 I'm honored that I got in his kitchen so much that he just gave up. That's WiNNiNg for me.


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 9, 2014)

WiN


JC...........when limpwristers like Synthaholic put you on IGNORE, for them, thats winning!!!




*lOsE*


----------



## jc456 (Oct 9, 2014)

skookerasbil said:


> WiN
> 
> 
> JC...........when limpwristers like Synthaholic put you on IGNORE, for them, thats winning!!!
> ...


 Problem is, they ain't shutten me up so that really makes em LoSeRs


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 10, 2014)

yuk.....yuk.......top of the page on DRUDGE right now!!!


September Snow Cover Was Highest On Record In North America Real Science


Ummmm.......who's not winning??


----------



## Bfgrn (Oct 10, 2014)

skookerasbil said:


> yuk.....yuk.......top of the page on DRUDGE right now!!!
> 
> 
> September Snow Cover Was Highest On Record In North America Real Science
> ...



drudge?


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 10, 2014)

skookerasbil said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Dr. Curry is hardly the foremost authority on climate change.
> ...



I did not say that she was not an authority, just no way the foremost authority.


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 10, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > yuk.....yuk.......top of the page on DRUDGE right now!!!
> ...


 


DRUDGE..........seeen only by 30 million people a day s0n!!! About a billlion hits a month!!!

Synthaholics preferred media outlet is MSNBC........seen by about 179 people/day!!!


----------



## mamooth (Oct 10, 2014)

Skook, why can't you ever talk about the science?

Oh, that's right. You suck balls at the science, and all the science says you're a dishonest cultist.

Sucks to be you. How do you put up with everyone laughing so hard at you? Do you drink heavily, as your posting habits suggest? Are in you just in denial? Or do you simply accept the humiliation as a price to paid for the greater good of your cult?


----------



## saveliberty (Oct 10, 2014)

Seems like this guy has expertise in catastropic social reactions, which does apply to the Global Warming issue.  After all, you Faithers claim the end of the world as we know it.  Social science is a science and as such has to follow sientific method.  They can't manipulate data or claim a valid theory without accurate models being proven.  Pretty easy to see how real scientists would find Climate scientists a sham.  THis brings us back to the, provide a link to an experiment that shows what 120 PPM of CO2 can do to the climate request...


----------



## mamooth (Oct 10, 2014)

We've given those links many time, and Frank always ignores them. Nobody caters to his lies any more, so we won't cater to you lying in the same way.

By the way, you need to understand that you being a brainwashed cultist has no bearing at all on the validity of the science. Almost no denier gets that. People who do understand that the universe doesn't revolve around them just don't get sucked into the denier cult.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 10, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Skook, why can't you ever talk about the science?
> 
> Oh, that's right. You suck balls at the science, and all the science says you're a dishonest cultist.
> 
> Sucks to be you. How do you put up with everyone laughing so hard at you? Do you drink heavily, as your posting habits suggest? Are in you just in denial? Or do you simply accept the humiliation as a price to paid for the greater good of your cult?


There you go again discussing drinking.  Hmmm... since that statement appears on your posts most frequently, I will assume you are the one on here who is doing the consuming.


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 11, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Skook, why can't you ever talk about the science?
> 
> Oh, that's right. You suck balls at the science, and all the science says you're a dishonest cultist.
> 
> Sucks to be you. How do you put up with everyone laughing so hard at you? Do you drink heavily, as your posting habits suggest? Are in you just in denial? Or do you simply accept the humiliation as a price to paid for the greater good of your cult?




Not my thing s0n.......and indeed I do blow at science. But my only concern is that my "cult" keeps winning. The AGW crusaders still.......for the billions of science posts on the internet..........have had virtually zero impact on the *real world*. So really s0n........besides hobby-like banter, whats the point?

Heres the analogy s0n because evidently it needs to be put into context for you.......

People who are vegans deeply believe that their way of eating is superior and they advocate like hell to everybody around them. Maybe they are 100% correct.......but in the *real world*, they are indeed a distinct minority. Few people care as McDonalds continues to serve billions. A vegan, thinking like an AGW crusader, would consider a non-vegan a "cult" member. McDonalds is the highlight banner which indicts the vegan as a fucking nut. In the *real world*, the vegan is looked at as being just a bit odd.

Now......if "climate science" and its attendant doom predictions were having any impact in the *real world*, green energy wouldn't be as much of a joke as it is in 2014 ( solar provides 0.2% of American energy ). So really.......nobody is caring about the science.......anybody with half a brain can figure that out. But not the AGW nutter.........


"Cults" have virtually zero impact in the *real world.* To anybody with even the IQ of a small soap dish, they can clearly see that if skeptics really were a cult, green energy would be far more entrenched in American life than it is. Its a speck on the energy grid ( 3% total ). And skeptics are the "cult"???


So yes......discussing climate science is a hobby that bores the shit out of me and evidently a gigantic majority of Americans.

s0n......its just that your head explodes when I post up the reality of the situation.........look around s0n.......you have 3 or 4 AGW obsessed assholes standing with you. There are thousands of USMB members. That makes you a cult asshole.


Its all about the *real world* s0n!!!


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 11, 2014)

[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/gigantor6.gif.html]
	
[/URL]


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 11, 2014)

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring 97-Percent Consensus Claims - Forbes


----------



## mamooth (Oct 11, 2014)

I think what confuses poor skook so much is that he sees the laughter being directed at him dying down, so he assumes it means he's making sense, as opposed to it meaning he's become too irrelevant to even laugh at.


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 11, 2014)

mamooth said:


> I think what confuses poor skook so much is that he sees the laughter being directed at him dying down, so he assumes it means he's making sense, as opposed to it meaning he's become too irrelevant to even laugh at.






but board members see this: another irrelevant post


They see shit like I posted up in POST #56 and dive for cover = convenient ignoring of the profound reality!!


I have 2 or 3 people laughing at me on this forum........but about 15 regular board members splitting their sides laughing with me!!!


They are >>>

[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/DOMINATION-3.jpg.html]
	
[/URL]



They have put together the most dominant and epic thread this forum has ever seen..........by faaaaaaaaar!!!! Over 100,000 views and heading for 4,000 posts. >>>>>>


More Proof the skeptics are WINNING US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## mamooth (Oct 11, 2014)

Skook, you viewing your own thread a hundred times a day indicates something, but it's not what you think, and it doesn't reflect well on you.

Still, we support having that thread around, just so you have a place to spam without annoying everyone else. So please keep your spam confined there.


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 11, 2014)

profound reality ftmfw


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 11, 2014)

saveliberty said:


> Seems like this guy has expertise in catastropic social reactions, which does apply to the Global Warming issue.  After all, you Faithers claim the end of the world as we know it.  Social science is a science and as such has to follow sientific method.  They can't manipulate data or claim a valid theory without accurate models being proven.  Pretty easy to see how real scientists would find Climate scientists a sham.  *THis brings us back to the, provide a link to an experiment that shows what 120 PPM of CO2 can do to the climate request..*.



Awe.....  are you gonna make me show all these CAGW nutters as fools again?

They dont even understand what the LOG function is let alone how it shows their premise false.


----------



## Crick (Oct 15, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> Awe.....  are you gonna make me show all these CAGW nutters as fools again?
> 
> They dont even understand what the LOG function is let alone how it shows their premise false.



Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is a red herring manufactured by deniers.  You will not find the term, for instance, in AR5.

You haven't shown anyone a fool here but yourself.

I'm quite certain I understand logarithms; pretty likely better than you.


----------



## Kosh (Oct 15, 2014)

Crick said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Awe.....  are you gonna make me show all these CAGW nutters as fools again?
> ...



Yes that AL Gore film proved you were right, it was created by the deniers of real science. You know, the AGW cult!


----------



## jc456 (Oct 15, 2014)

mamooth said:


> I think what confuses poor skook so much is that he sees the laughter being directed at him dying down, so he assumes it means he's making sense, as opposed to it meaning he's become too irrelevant to even laugh at.


 So curious, do you believe that only scientists can discuss the climate? I see the question get asked by you all all the time.  See the failure on your part is convincing those who are not scientists.  See you FAIL and you FAIL everyday here doing that.  We non scientist asked but one question to believe the warmers and that is where is the experiment that shows that adding 120PPM of CO2 does in fact cause chaos?  hen you inslut us because you can't deliver.  Hmmm seems you are not smart enough to be out in public since you have no personal skills.  LoSiNg   From the non-scientists that pwns you daily....


----------



## Crick (Oct 15, 2014)

Jc, you need to get a tighter grip on reality.  You've never pwned anyone in your entire life.


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 15, 2014)

Crick said:


> Jc, you need to get a tighter grip on reality.  You've never pwned anyone in your entire life.




Hey JC.....go check my new thread on the latest Gallup poll ( rank of global warming - public concern ).......saw it about 30 minutes ago and still laughing my balls off.


dead last........


cults are gay


----------



## asterism (Oct 15, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



2013:


----------



## asterism (Oct 15, 2014)

And now it s global COOLING Return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 29 in a year Daily Mail Online


----------



## Bfgrn (Oct 16, 2014)

asterism said:


> And now it s global COOLING Return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 29 in a year Daily Mail Online



http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/21/s...-but-long-term-decline-may-continue.html?_r=0


*September 20, 2013 *

Sea ice in the Arctic Ocean underwent a sharp recovery this year from the record-low levels of 2012, with 50 percent more ice surviving the summer melt season, scientists said Friday. It is the largest one-year increase in Arctic ice since satellite tracking began in 1978.

The experts added, however, that much of the ice remains thin and slushy, a far cry from the thick Arctic pack ice of the past. Because thin ice is subject to rapid future melting, the scientists said this year’s recovery was unlikely to portend any change in the relentless long-term decline of Arctic sea ice.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Go back to the OP article and check out this link on the right hand ledger...

*Arctic ice cap is in a 'death spiral', claims leading academic*

*THE Arctic ice cap is in a "death spiral" a leading academic claimed after returning from a research voyage.*






Peter Wadhams, professor of ocean physics at Cambridge University, said that the ice cap has now melted so much that open water is now just 350 miles form the North Pole.

This is the shortest distance ever recorded.

He added: "The Arctic ice cap is in a death spiral."

Professor Wadhams measured the thickness of the Arctic sea ice by sending a remote-control mini-submarine under the floes.

He said: "On average it was about 0.8 metres thick, compared with five metres when I first went in 1976.

more


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 16, 2014)

asterism said:


> And now it s global COOLING Return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 29 in a year Daily Mail Online






LOL.....the AGW k00ks completely dimiss those photos as fake!!!


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 16, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > And now it s global COOLING Return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 29 in a year Daily Mail Online
> ...





Oh Gawd!!!

Is there anything you don't get hysterical about s0n???


----------



## Bfgrn (Oct 16, 2014)

skookerasbil said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > And now it s global COOLING Return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 29 in a year Daily Mail Online
> ...



Hey pea brain, have an adult help you. No one says the photos are fake.

*Arctic Ice Makes Comeback From Record Low, but Long-Term Decline May Continue*

*September 20, 2013
*
Sea ice in the Arctic Ocean underwent a sharp recovery this year from the record-low levels of 2012, with 50 percent more ice surviving the summer melt season, scientists said Friday. It is the largest one-year increase in Arctic ice since satellite tracking began in 1978.*
*
The experts added, however, that much of the ice remains thin and slushy, a far cry from the thick Arctic pack ice of the past. Because thin ice is subject to rapid future melting, the scientists said this year’s recovery was unlikely to portend any change in the relentless long-term decline of Arctic sea ice.*
*
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/21/s...-but-long-term-decline-may-continue.html?_r=0


----------



## Bfgrn (Oct 16, 2014)

skookerasbil said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...



Are there ANY human beings you believe except the ones funded by the biggest polluters on the planet?

*Time we live in called the age of humans*

*An increasing number of scientists employ a new term to acknowledge humans’ great impact on the planet.*


By SETH BORENSTEIN The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — People are changing Earth so much, warming and polluting it, that many scientists are turning to a new way to describe the time we live in. They’re calling it the Anthropocene – the age of humans.

Though most non-experts don’t realize it, science calls the past 12,000 years the Holocene, Greek for “entirely recent.” But the way humans and their industries are altering the planet, especially its climate, has caused an increasing number of scientists to use the word Anthropocene to better describe when and where we are.

*“We’re changing the Earth. There is no question about that, I’ve seen it from space,” said eight-time spacewalking astronaut John Grunsfeld*, now associate administrator for science at NASA. He said that *when he looked down from orbit, there was no place he could see on the planet that didn’t have the mark of man.* So he uses the term Anthropocene, he said, “because we’re intelligent enough to recognize it.”


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 16, 2014)

Offuckingcourse a NASA guy is going to say that!!


----------



## Bfgrn (Oct 16, 2014)

skookerasbil said:


> Offuckingcourse a NASA guy is going to say that!!



I'm a reasonable man; a pragmatist. And as an opened minded liberal, I believe everyone has a right to their own opinion.

But let's be clear skookerasbil...CRYSTAL... Your position is that 97.2 percent of the scientists who endorse the "consensus" that global warming is human caused are all a bunch of k00ks.

True or false?

Your belief is the only people who have any credibility about climate change just happen to also be financed by huge corporations and mining cartels who make billions of dollars annually polluting our environment and benefit financially by anything that delays action to stop or regulate that activity.

True or false?

And that a large amount of the 'science' and strategy you support can be traced back to the very same 'science' and strategy big tobacco used to deny smoking causes cancer.

True or false?

Please answer honestly...


----------



## jc456 (Oct 16, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Offuckingcourse a NASA guy is going to say that!!
> ...


 where are the questions they were asked?


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 16, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Offuckingcourse a NASA guy is going to say that!!
> ...


 

I dont care.............and neither does anybody else.

Nothing matters with this shit unless the policy makers give a fuck. They dont. Fossil fuels march on s0n.....unabated. The US will be the largest exproter of crude by years end. Natural gas is BOOMING ( shit....the roads in Suffolk Co. on Long Island here are being torn up to shit to build new gas line mains......travel/traffic here blows). Germany is importing coal at record levels in 2014 ( and 20 new coal plants to be built by 2020 ). Solar power is 0.2% of our energy now and maximum projections have renewables at 10% by 2050!!! ( Obama's EIA projections, not mine!! ). Go check a projection of use of coal by China in the next 30 years s0n!!!

Nobody cares what I think about about a "consensus"......only you dolts continue to be duped!!! But continue the nuttiness please..........this forum would suck balls without it.


After 25+ years of bomb throwing and deliberating about temperatures........the AGW crowd has barely moved the goalposts a smidge.


Thats called *lOsInG *



s0n......you can build the most beautiful car in the world, but if you dont put wheels on it, it isnt worth dick


----------



## mamooth (Oct 16, 2014)

The Unibomber also declared he was "winning". So that's another similarity between the Unibomber and skook/jc. It's not just the writing style; it's the paranoid megalomania.


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 16, 2014)

mamooth said:


> The Unibomber also declared he was "winning". So that's another similarity between the Unibomber and skook/jc. It's not just the writing style; it's the paranoid megalomania.


 


w0w............impressive post.

Thats right............Im a paranoid meglomania.......but WiNnInG


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 16, 2014)

annually polluting our environment and benefit financially by anything that delays action to stop or regulate that activity.

True or false?

And that a large amount of the 'science' and strategy you support can be traced back to the very same 'science' and strategy big tobacco used to deny smoking causes cancer.

True or false?

Please answer honestly...
Click to expand...

I dont care.............and neither does anybody else.

Nothing matters with this shit unless the policy makers give a fuck. They dont. Fossil fuels march on s0n.....unabated. The US will be the largest exproter of crude by years end. Natural gas is BOOMING ( shit....the roads in Suffolk Co. on Long Island here are being torn up to shit to build new gas line mains......travel/traffic here blows). Germany is importing coal at record levels in 2014 ( and 20 new coal plants to be built by 2020 ). Solar power is 0.2% of our energy now and maximum projections have renewables at 10% by 2050!!! ( Obama's EIA projections, not mine!! ). Go check a projection of use of coal by China in the next 30 years s0n!!!

Nobody cares what I think about about a "consensus"......only you dolts continue to be duped!!! But continue the nuttiness please..........this forum would suck balls without it.


After 25+ years of bomb throwing and deliberating about temperatures........the AGW crowd has barely moved the goalposts a smidge.


Thats called *lOsInG *



s0n......you can build the most beautiful car in the world, but if you dont put wheels on it, it isnt worth dick












*Pardon........but thought the above post was outstanding to the point of being surreal, thus, a repost was in order.*

*Its outstanding because it cannot be refuted!!!*


----------



## jc456 (Oct 16, 2014)

mamooth said:


> QUOTE]


k00k!!!!!!


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 16, 2014)

jc456 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > QUOTE]
> ...


 


These people are missing a filter JC......like most far left guys. Dollar to a thousand stale donuts that if we have had a USMB ENVIRONMENT FORUM  gathering, these people would strike you immediately as being profound social oddballs. WHen you are being publically humiliated and have no clue about it, thats a problem.


----------



## Bfgrn (Oct 17, 2014)

skookerasbil said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



“You know, I’ve spent my entire life time separating the Right from the kooks”
William F. Buckley Jr.

I don't have to humiliate you k00k, you are an expert at humiliating yourself.

So your answers are...TRUE!...TRUE!!...TRUE!!!

Let's recap:

Bfgrn:
I'm a reasonable man; a pragmatist. And as an opened minded liberal, I believe everyone has a right to their own opinion.

But let's be clear skookerasbil...CRYSTAL... Your position is that 97.2 percent of the scientists who endorse the "consensus" that global warming is human caused are all a bunch of k00ks.

True or false? *TRUE!*

Your belief is the only people who have any credibility about climate change just happen to also be financed by huge corporations and mining cartels who make billions of dollars annually polluting our environment and benefit financially by anything that delays action to stop or regulate that activity.

True or false? *TRUE!!*

And that a large amount of the 'science' and strategy you support can be traced back to the very same 'science' and strategy big tobacco used to deny smoking causes cancer.

True or false? *TRUE!!!*


"Truth will do well enough if left to shift for herself. She seldom has received much aid from the power of great men to whom she is rarely known & seldom welcome. She has no need of force to procure entrance into the minds of men. Error indeed has often prevailed by the assistance of power or force. Truth is the proper & sufficient antagonist to error.
Thomas Jefferson


----------



## Youch (Oct 17, 2014)

skookerasbil said:


> Dr Benny Peiser says public are more sceptical about climate change and global warming Nature News Daily Express
> 
> One word = *Ooooooooooooooooooops!!!!
> *
> ...




Yes, the counter-balance is cyclical cooling.


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 17, 2014)

Youch said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Dr Benny Peiser says public are more sceptical about climate change and global warming Nature News Daily Express
> ...





Bfgrn said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...








Well, take a bow s0n......you've answered your own questions with "true". Ive noticed the far left are the only board members who pull such a gay stunt. Like all far left k00ks......their heads explode when they see a post that provides a sobering nut sack kick.....in this case, the sobering reality that 20+ years of throwing bombs on climate change has netted them dick.

You missed a memo somewhere along the way s0n......the people prefer cheap energy, not expensive energy. If the pols provide them with expensive energy that is unreliable, the pols are out. That's the way it works in the real world. That the way it will always work. When wind and solar can compete in the energy market without massive government subsidies, the AGW climate crusaders might actually matter in the real world. The other memo the climate crusader assholes missed is that there are special interests attached to green energy........lots of people making big bucks off of green energy and these dolts think green energy is some altruistic business entity.

Lastly......when you see people on the far left talking abut "polluting our environment".......if you have half a brain, you realize you are looking at the rantings of what has become known as human racism = the earth is more important than humans so fuck them!!! The thinking is decidedly fringe. And anyway......the canned crap about "big oil and huge corporations perpetuating the fossil fuel industry"? Everybody and their brother has known about that for a long time now........and nobody cares. They like their fossil fuels because they ( but not the k00ks ) know "costs" matter in life.


Most people can think on the margin, unlike people on the far left. As Sowell points out here, there are 2 questions that those on the far left never care to answer. They are, 1) At what cost?......2) As compared to what?


To the majority, those are important questions to be answered no matter what you are talking about. But not to the far left k00ks.


----------



## Bfgrn (Oct 18, 2014)

skookerasbil said:


> Youch said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...



It is truly amazing how really, really stupid you are. You and Sowell's picture would be next to the definition of 'marginal thinking' 

FACT: dirty energy would die in an instant without the massive subsidies that absorb their costs. WHY? Because if those industries had to internalize their costs, and not just their profits, it would be clear even to morons like you that dirty energy is the MOST costly form of energy. And pea brains like you who continue to defend the cartels are clueless about the externalization of cost they desperately spend billions to defend.

The answer is a TRUE free market. Morons like you and Sowell have NO idea what that even looks like.

This is not about 'save the earth'....news flash: the earth is not going anywhere. The earth will survive no matter what human beings do. If a massive nuclear war broke out today killing all human, plants and animals, the 'earth would continue.

It IS about keeping in place the narrow set of earth properties that allows human life to continue.

Hey pea brain, take a good hard look at the coming 'majority'...


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 18, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Youch said:
> ...





Yeah.....but "what if's" and conjecture are gay s0n!!! That's why there are millions of bumper stickers in the US about the far left Disney dwellers being mental cases.


The "pea brain deniers" are wInNing!!! Well......at least the Obama EIA thinks so!!!



[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/8abb9baf6-3.jpg.html]
	
[/URL]



Anyway.......the Gallup poll posted above tells the whole story. Nobody cares about global warming except the AGW obsessed. Too......young people don't know shit about shit about the real world. Ask any parent. Young people.......you can sell them a bag of dog doo for $1,000 a pop if its packaged up just right. When they get older and have to pay the energy bills and balance their budget, they realize how stoopid green energy is. Because to them......costs matter. They don't matter to the AGW nuts.[/URL][/URL]


----------



## jc456 (Oct 20, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Youch said:
> ...


So what is your version of free market?


----------



## Youch (Oct 21, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Youch said:
> ...



Comparing me to Sowell?  A greater compliment has never been given to me on a public forum.

Sowell is a brilliant man.  Refute him if you can.  (you can't, of course).


----------



## mamooth (Oct 21, 2014)

So, like Sowell, do you think Obama is just like Hitler?

Do you think the US is in danger of having to surrender to Iran?

Were you a big backer of starting a war in Iraq?

Do you think DDT is harmless, and that banning it killed millions?

Do you think the New Deal made the depression worse?

Do you favor the gold standard?

Sowell did or believes all of the above crazy things. He's a barking loon, which guarantees that the paste-eating wing of the libertarians will worship him.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 21, 2014)

mamooth said:


> So, like Sowell, do you think Obama is just like Hitler?
> 
> Do you think the US is in danger of having to surrender to Iran?
> 
> ...


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 21, 2014)

mamooth said:


> So, like Sowell, do you think Obama is just like Hitler?
> 
> Do you think the US is in danger of having to surrender to Iran?
> 
> ...








He says, "There are 3 questions which when the far left person tries to answer, their argument falls apart.........."

1) At what cost?

2) As compared to what?

3) What hard evidence do you have?


And we certainly have proved that in here, have we not?

I have asked numerous times for any of the AGW k00ks to present one single link that shows us that their stuff is mattering in the real world. Asked it two years ago.......not a single response. Because all of their arguments get smashed to shit when they have to answer any of the above questions as they relate to AGW having any significant impact in the real world.

Its been a hobby. Its a hobby now. It'll be a hobby 10 years from now. That's ALL it is.


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 21, 2014)

1) At what cost? ( *we hear about banning fossil fuels for the planet....to stop warming.......nobody is listening )*

2) As compared to what?  *( we hear about solar and wind......but after 20 years, its a sliver of the energy market......because *
*                                                          nations cant go green or their asses get thrown out )*

3) What hard evidence do you have? *( ummm......that would be zero. No hard evidence.....only speculation based upon *
*                                                                             computer models known to be notoriously faulty )*


----------



## Bfgrn (Oct 21, 2014)

Youch said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...



Sowell is not a brilliant man. He is a lightweight who will always contort his story to please his handlers. He is incapable of critical thought.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 21, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Youch said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...


IF he is such a light weight why do you and your ilk refuse to answer simple questions that the man asks?


----------



## Bfgrn (Oct 21, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Youch said:
> ...



Like what?


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 21, 2014)

Billy_Bob said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Youch said:
> ...





*cAnT*


----------



## Crick (Oct 21, 2014)

I imagine this was brought out long ago, but Dr Peiser is a social anthropologist, not a climate scientist.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 21, 2014)

Yep, but now they have descended to the likes of Sowell as their expert. LOL


----------



## Youch (Oct 22, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Youch said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



You've obviously not read any of his books or sat in any of his lectures.  You know nothing of the man.  Among the smartest black men that ever lived.  And you denigrate him.  Are you a racist??

What does it say about a punk who denigrates a man about whom he knows absofreakinlootly nothing?  Small penis, is likely the answer.  Sorry, but I've had too many psych courses and lived too long to think otherwise....


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 22, 2014)

*"Climate scientists have a very narrow compentency........"*



This is classic.......a must watch!!!! Sowell speaks to the farce of people depending on the scientific "experts".....a totally rigged game.


The far left hate Thomas Sowell with a passion because on all issues, he decimates their line of thinking.......and does it in such a manner that it is hard not to burst out laughing. If all voters spent 30 minutes with Mr Sowell, the left would never win an election again.


----------



## IanC (Oct 22, 2014)

skookerasbil said:


> *"Climate scientists have a very narrow compentency........"*
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Sowell has a habit of cutting through the bullshit and getting down to the common sense of a problem


----------



## SSDD (Oct 22, 2014)

Liberals can't abide common sense...and a black man who doesn't present himself as a helpless victim of "the man" is offensive to all liberals...


----------



## jc456 (Oct 22, 2014)

why is it liberals loathe financial freedom?


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 22, 2014)

jc456 said:


> why is it liberals loathe financial freedom?



We endorse financial freedom, unlike you silly ass 'Conservetives'. Solar for the homeowner. Make your own power and fuel for your EV. Freedom from the energy corperations.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 22, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > why is it liberals loathe financial freedom?
> ...


Where is it?

How much does it cost?

Can I be completely independent from the grid?


----------



## mamooth (Oct 22, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Liberals can't abide common sense...and a black man who doesn't present himself as a helpless victim of "the man" is offensive to all liberals...



It was a given that one of the conservatives would be the first to fling out the race card. It was only a question of which one it would be, and here it was both SSDD and Youch. To the poor conservatives, everything is always entirely about race. They're just not capable of rational colorblind thinking.

It was also a given that the uberwimps of the right here would run screaming from me simply asking whether they agreed with Sowell's nutball beliefs. The deniers here really are some of the most flagrant prancing pansies on the planet. There's not a gonad to be found in the lot of them combined. On the plus side, their hair does look marvelous, due to all that daily primping.

So deniers, like Sowell, do you think Obama is just like Hitler?

Do you think the US is in danger of having to surrender to Iran?

Were you a big backer of starting a war in Iraq?

Do you think DDT is harmless, and that banning it killed millions?

Do you think the New Deal made the depression worse?

Do you favor the gold standard?

If needed, I can link directly to Sowell pushing all those positions. That's what your hero believes in, denier kooks. So is it that you all agree with Sowell, but are ashamed to admit it, or is it that you're ashamed of Sowell being such a kook and don't want to admit it?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 22, 2014)

mamooth said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Liberals can't abide common sense...and a black man who doesn't present himself as a helpless victim of "the man" is offensive to all liberals...
> ...


 B-O-R-I-N-G


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 22, 2014)

IanC said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > *"Climate scientists have a very narrow compentency........"*
> ...






Which is exactly why people who embrace AGW.....almost invariably far left guys......don't understand. The level of common sense is profound with Sowell. As Sowell would say, and in relation with the topic of green energy, the AGW crowd has zero interest in having to answer the question, "As compared to what and at what price?". Because if they are forced to go there, their argument collapses to anybody with even the IQ of a small soap dish.


Some people just have great difficulty with thinking on the margin......its not an intelligence thing. Its a thought processing thing......big difference. For some, most notably folks on the far left, facts and results are something inconvenient and are thus ignored.......these people are far more comfortable than most in navigating in the realm of conjecture and speculation and how the world could be......not the way the world is. Thank God that for most of the world, deliberating the costs matter......if they didn't, our freedoms would be fucked and we'd be living in a world eerily similar to the one described in the works of Sir Thomas More, especially, "UTOPIA". You want your balls scared off.......read that.......100% mimics the thinking of the far left and the AGW society of screwball nutters. Sowell has written extensively about how the social philosopher k00ks never took a moment to try to apply the economics to their utopian societies......if they did, nobody would have ever read ANY of their works ( see Plato - Hobbes et. al. ). The far left of today think exactly like the utopian whackjobs of the Renaissance age......profound levels of imagination ( see AGW pronunciations about green energy........just beyond-gone stuff......displays perfectly this complete inability to think on the margin )

I have exchanged several e-mails with Sowell over the past 17 years......he has no peer in terms of simplifying an issue down to brass tacks.


----------



## Bfgrn (Oct 22, 2014)

Youch said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Youch said:
> ...



I know he is a liar. And I know why he lie$. Once you


Youch said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Youch said:
> ...



Pretty funny...you accuse me of being a racist, THEN you make the *ULTIMATE* racist statement...

I bet you will be totally obtuse to what your just said.

Sowell is a mindless shill for his right wing handlers. He will ALWAYS blame government for every possible malady, from flat tires on the highway to constipation. Sowell will NEVER throw any Wall Street bankster, corporation or cartel under the bus, because the first time he does, you will never see or hear from him again. He is smart enough to know who butters his bread.

His book, "The Housing Boom and Bust" is a prime example of his shoddy work

As soon as Sowell can explain how the Community Reinvestment Act forced bankers to lend to deadbeats in Iceland, Ireland, Spain, Romania and even that capitalist bastion China, I will continue to call him a shill.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 22, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Youch said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...


 Can you say boob?  Probably not, you just are one!  oh my word holy sh_ite


----------



## SSDD (Oct 22, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > why is it liberals loathe financial freedom?
> ...




RIght...which is why liberal policy has created generational dependence on government handouts.


----------



## Bfgrn (Oct 22, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Youch said:
> ...



SO, your reply is the equivalent of "I know you are, but what am I"


----------



## jc456 (Oct 22, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...


 What I posted is all that was worth!


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 22, 2014)

Sowell's a political pundit, not a scientist, and has little training in any scientific discipline. Economics is hardly a science, and he is hardly a leading light in that discipline.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 22, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Sowell's a political pundit, not a scientist, and has little training in any scientific discipline. Economics is hardly a science, and he is hardly a leading light in that discipline.


 
so the question is is he wrong?

Why does he need to be?  What's your point?  again are you saying that either you believe it or else?


----------



## Bfgrn (Oct 22, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Well, the YOU can explain how the Community Reinvestment Act forced bankers to lend to deadbeats in Iceland, Ireland, Spain, Romania and even that capitalist bastion China


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 22, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Sowell's a political pundit, not a scientist, and has little training in any scientific discipline. Economics is hardly a science, and he is hardly a leading light in that discipline.





But is point is that the concept of "climate science" is not really a science at all. Even Einstein ( Id consider him a real scientist ) stated that it is folly to call anything "science" if there are ANY questions about its validity. Rejecting prevailing information ( science ) that doesn't conform with a segment of scientists does not equal science.

Why do you think that Al Gore has ALWAYS refused to debate ANYBODY? Because he'd be slaughtered.

People ( the public at large ) will start accepting climate science when it isn't shutting out alternative data than their own. The fact is, most of the population thinks that climate scientists screw around with the data ( the polls show that without a shadow of a doubt )......which means it isn't accepted as "science" yet. Its a huge hurdle that that climate science community has failed to recognize, except for some of the smarter ones like Dr Judith Curry, a giant in the field of climate science. ( or was until the extremists threw her under the bus )

The whole "peer reviewed" stuff is exactly what it suggests........but it should say "reviewed only by peers who think exactly alike".

If you are a scientist and NOT a member of the secret society, you are a fake scientist  = science fraud.


----------



## Bfgrn (Oct 22, 2014)

skookerasbil said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Sowell's a political pundit, not a scientist, and has little training in any scientific discipline. Economics is hardly a science, and he is hardly a leading light in that discipline.
> ...



Moral justification to suck CEO ass..


----------



## Youch (Oct 23, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



He is shallow.  He proved it. He is compensating.  He proved it.  Just let it go.


----------



## Crick (Oct 23, 2014)

I really don't think jc456 could show himself of sufficient maturity to be allowed the unsupervised use of a computer on the internet.  Do your parents know you're here?


----------



## Crick (Oct 23, 2014)

So, forgive me for lacking the intestinal fortitude to go looking for it, but by what permutation did social anthropologist Benny Peiser become "leading climate scientist Dr Peiser"?  Who started this stupid thread?


----------



## Bfgrn (Oct 23, 2014)

Youch said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Yea, Youch will tell you Sowell is "among the smartest black men that ever lived".

I had an Alaskan Malamute that was "among the smartest dogs that ever lived"...But like Sowell, my dog was not among the smartest PEOPLE that ever lived.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 23, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Yea, Youch will tell you Sowell is "among the smartest black men that ever lived".
> 
> I had an Alaskan Malamute that was "among the smartest dogs that ever lived"...But like Sowell, my dog was not among the smartest PEOPLE that ever lived.



I guess you think obama is among the smartest black men who have ever lived...go ahead...admit it...show us what you are made of.


----------



## Bfgrn (Oct 23, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Yea, Youch will tell you Sowell is "among the smartest black men that ever lived".
> ...



Is this 'Dumb (Youch) and Dumber (SSDD) the sequel?...


----------



## Crick (Oct 23, 2014)

BFGRN,

Both Youch and SSDD are exemplary idiots, but I have to tell you your comment sounds very much as if you're calling all black men dogs; or, at the very least, saying they don't qualify as people.


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 23, 2014)

A new concept has emerged in recent decades.....it is called scientific dictatorship. It seeks to control's peoples thinking via use of identified "experts". Quite clever......most people would never doubt an "expert". But in the realm of climate science......as we have pointed out above.......the "experts" are a rigged group. The "experts" absolutely do not allow any data/information into the scientific discussion if it does not match the already established narrative. Low information people......and there are many of millions.......buy in hook, line and stinker because, as they say, "but the experts are saying........". Zombie programming..........clever as hell. Of course, it doesn't conform with the reality.

Dupe enough of the stoopids and scare the shit out of them, they'll be happy to be taxed for the purpose of protection.........."We're saving the human race here.......". This scheme really ramped up in the early 1990's......reached its pinnacle in about 2006 with the gay Gore movie but has come to an abrupt halt by about 2008 when the people ( enough of them ) realized these fuckers were going big time for their wallet and their jobs. The proof is in the spectacular failure that was the Cap and Trade scheme ( the non-duped call it Crap and Tax ). It is now dead as a doornail......but the Scientific Dictatorship efforts move full steam ahead via mindless EPA regulations which have one purpose and one purpose only: destroy small business. The costs of meeting these regulations puts millions of small business owners out of work, many having to seek government assistance and ahhhhhhhh......isn't that a perfect path to socialism?? Scheme is pretty clever huh???!!!!! Use science to transform the country via taxes and regulation.......most of the idiots wont even see it coming until it is too late. For the non-stoopids, its a simple connect the dots exercise.

Make no mistake.......these fuckers are dangerous as hell. They seek, like our current president, to transform all of our country to another France. Go see how things are going over there......a joke. The country falls deeper into the shitter every day.......an entire culture being systematically eliminated through government policy. A whole people who got duped and now its too late......smothered in nanny state taxes and an uncontrollable immigrant population. The future is grim for people of French origin. Fuckers haven't much time......part of their demise was buying into the scheme of the scientific dictatorship and the "experts", making them non-competitive economically.......allowed their whole country to be transformed into a multicultural clusterfuck.

Thankfully......a majority over here still get it. The scientific dictatorship assholes are stuck in the mid on the side of the road with two flat tires for the last several years. Fossil fuels are more popular than ever in the USA. Renewable energy, though talked about a lot .........is still a joke and will be for decades at least.

By the way.....a quick look at the posts by the AGW crusaders put the whole strategy/scheme perfectly on display.......paint Dr Peiser as a "non-expert" as if he were some kind of mindless dummy. To the AGW crowd, if you don't conform to their way of thinking, you're going down.......hard.......

Kinda like a dictatorship works huh???!!!!


----------



## Bfgrn (Oct 23, 2014)

Crick said:


> BFGRN,
> 
> Both Youch and SSDD are exemplary idiots, but I have to tell you your comment sounds very much as if you're calling all black men dogs; or, at the very least, saying they don't qualify as people.



There was dumb and dumber, are you auditioning for 'dumbest'?

Let's recap for 'dumbest'. I said Thomas Sowell was shill for his handlers. Youch accused me of being a 'racist'. THEN Youch SAID: Sowell is "among the smartest BLACK men that ever lived", not among the smartest 'people', or smartest 'men' who ever lived...Youch's 'qualifier' is the MOST racist comment that can be made. It is the equivalent of calling Sowell a dog...

NOW, lets see if you can absorb this simple concept, or if you want to continue the audition...


----------



## jc456 (Oct 23, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...


 So are you saying you have evidence that the Community Reinvestment Act forced lenders to give money to these countries?  I'm sorry, I looked but couldn't find what you're talking about.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 23, 2014)

Youch said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...


 I appreciate the concern.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 23, 2014)

Crick said:


> So, forgive me for lacking the intestinal fortitude to go looking for it, but by what permutation did social anthropologist Benny Peiser become "leading climate scientist Dr Peiser"?  Who started this stupid thread?


 What's your issue with this?


----------



## Truman123 (Oct 23, 2014)

Peiser established the Cambridge Conference Network in 1997. Peiser acknowledges that he is "not a climate scientist" and has "never claimed to be one." His interest as a social anthropologist, is in "how climate change is portrayed as a potential disaster and how we respond to that."[2]


----------



## mamooth (Oct 23, 2014)

This applies to anything skook writes:




skookerasbil said:


> A new concept has emerged in recent decades.....it is called scientific dictatorship. It seeks to control's peoples thinking via use of identified "experts". Quite clever......most people would never doubt an "expert". But in the realm of climate science......as we have pointed out above.......the "experts" are a rigged group. The "experts" absolutely do not allow any data/information into the scientific discussion if it does not match the already established narrative. Low information people......and there are many of millions.......buy in hook, line and stinker because, as they say, "but the experts are saying........". Zombie programming..........clever as hell. Of course, it doesn't conform with the reality.
> 
> Dupe enough of the stoopids and scare the shit out of them, they'll be happy to be taxed for the purpose of protection.........."We're saving the human race here.......". This scheme really ramped up in the early 1990's......reached its pinnacle in about 2006 with the gay Gore movie but has come to an abrupt halt by about 2008 when the people ( enough of them ) realized these fuckers were going big time for their wallet and their jobs. The proof is in the spectacular failure that was the Cap and Trade scheme ( the non-duped call it Crap and Tax ). It is now dead as a doornail......but the Scientific Dictatorship efforts move full steam ahead via mindless EPA regulations which have one purpose and one purpose only: destroy small business. The costs of meeting these regulations puts millions of small business owners out of work, many having to seek government assistance and ahhhhhhhh......isn't that a perfect path to socialism?? Scheme is pretty clever huh???!!!!! Use science to transform the country via taxes and regulation.......most of the idiots wont even see it coming until it is too late. For the non-stoopids, its a simple connect the dots exercise.
> 
> ...


----------



## jc456 (Oct 23, 2014)

mamooth said:


> This applies to anything skook writes:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 is that inaccruate?


----------



## Bfgrn (Oct 23, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



In his book "The Housing Boom and Bust", Thomas Sowell blames the CRA for the financial crisis. SO, please explain HOW the CRA forced bankers to lend to deadbeats in Iceland, Ireland, Spain, Romania and even that capitalist bastion China?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 23, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



What the fuck are you talking about?


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 23, 2014)

Im laughing at the response to my last post (#129). How fucking weak?

Like all of the committed left.....the fold like cheap wallets when they actually have to give a measured response.


I love this forum!!


----------



## SSDD (Oct 24, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



In his books, every claim he makes is meticulously backed up and supported...if you read the book, then you know exactly why he says what he says...if you didn't, then you are taking the word of someone who might have read the book, or like you, didn't and took someone else's word on what he said.  Sowell doesn't lose debates...if you want to know what he said, then read the book and if you have a reasonable argument to the contrary, then make it.  Pretending to have read something that you didn't just makes you look stupid.


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 24, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




SSDD.....there is a great YouTUBE vid of Sowell schooling Joe Biden on the floor of the Senate. Hysterical stuff. Check it out. Sowell is rarely challenged to debate.......because he brings hard evidence that blows up the rhetoric laced arguments of the far left. "Housing Boom and Bust" is a must read by the way......like all the works by Sowell, backed with HARD evidence.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 24, 2014)

skookerasbil said:


> A new concept has emerged in recent decades.....it is called scientific dictatorship. It seeks to control's peoples thinking via use of identified "experts". Quite clever......most people would never doubt an "expert". But in the realm of climate science......as we have pointed out above.......the "experts" are a rigged group. The "experts" absolutely do not allow any data/information into the scientific discussion if it does not match the already established narrative. Low information people......and there are many of millions.......buy in hook, line and stinker because, as they say, "but the experts are saying........". Zombie programming..........clever as hell. Of course, it doesn't conform with the reality.
> 
> Dupe enough of the stoopids and scare the shit out of them, they'll be happy to be taxed for the purpose of protection.........."We're saving the human race here.......". This scheme really ramped up in the early 1990's......reached its pinnacle in about 2006 with the gay Gore movie but has come to an abrupt halt by about 2008 when the people ( enough of them ) realized these fuckers were going big time for their wallet and their jobs. The proof is in the spectacular failure that was the Cap and Trade scheme ( the non-duped call it Crap and Tax ). It is now dead as a doornail......but the Scientific Dictatorship efforts move full steam ahead via mindless EPA regulations which have one purpose and one purpose only: destroy small business. The costs of meeting these regulations puts millions of small business owners out of work, many having to seek government assistance and ahhhhhhhh......isn't that a perfect path to socialism?? Scheme is pretty clever huh???!!!!! Use science to transform the country via taxes and regulation.......most of the idiots wont even see it coming until it is too late. For the non-stoopids, its a simple connect the dots exercise.
> 
> ...


 if you didn't see it, go watch this week's episode of the tv series 'Blacklist'.  It is right up this alley


----------



## Bfgrn (Oct 24, 2014)

SSDD said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



I will try to make so simple that even you can understand it...IF Sowell is correct that the Community Reinvestment Act caused the financial crisis, please explain HOW the CRA forced bankers to lend to deadbeats in Iceland, Ireland, Spain, Romania and even that capitalist bastion China?


----------



## Youch (Oct 25, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Youch said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Yes, drive-by fools need to be called out.  It isn't hard to do.



Asclepias said:


> Youch said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



Let me know whaen you are ready to debate the 3/5th issues.  Perhaps another thread.


----------



## Youch (Oct 25, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Youch said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Racist, aligning dogs with conservative black Americans,

I will not reduce myself to your idiocy. Instead, I will challenge you.  Find an overall position, (not some parsed sound-bite), that represents Sowell's position on anything, and then PROVE HIM/ME WRONG???!!!!!  You CANNOT!!!  Thus, your side-ways, malinformed, bigoted position holds no water.  Again, prove me wrong....


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 25, 2014)

Youch said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Youch said:
> ...


Ready now. Just tag me.


----------



## Youch (Oct 25, 2014)

Asclepias said:


> Youch said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Yet you've provided nothing???   You make a false claim, don't support it at the time, then when called out on the issue, you STILL don't support your weak-ass claim?  Come on man......Try harder....

I don't want to call anyone out, I am merely seeking the truth, and  you seem to be in my way.  Lets go...


----------



## Truman123 (Oct 25, 2014)

How is this thread still going?

Wasn't it DOA for people with basic reading skills?


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 25, 2014)

Youch said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Youch said:
> ...


Did I miss something?  I just said when you have the thread ready for a debate on the 3/5 issue to tag me.


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 25, 2014)

Truman123 said:


> How is this thread still going?
> 
> Wasn't it DOA for people with basic reading skills?





Because these people fall back on the only response they ever give = denigrate and besmirch the messenger. Its in the playbook.

But as all the polls show very clearly......people like Dr Peiser have resonated with the regular folks. In 2014, most of the folks look at this whole "climate change" concept with a raised eyebrow. Over the years, they've seen the dozens and dozens of predictions by these people fall flat on their face. Doesn't deter the AGW religion from clinging to the established narrative.....embracing the predictions by their anointed "experts" while publically nuking scientists and meteorologists who have figured out this is all a grand farce.

The most important thing related to Dr Peisers position is that the message has been picked up by the folks......they've seen enough of the BS over enough years that its not even on their radar anymore. The people don't care.......the proof is in the pudding and heres the poll that makes the AGW religion look silly >>>



*GLOBAL WARMING = DEAD LAST ON LIST OF PUBLIC CONERNS*

U.S. Voters Give GOP Edge vs. Dems on Handling Top Issues


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 25, 2014)

*DeAd LaSt

*


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 25, 2014)

A 'climate scientist', must first of all, be a scientist. The man in the OP is not a scientist. Therefore, he does not qualify for that title. As someone who is about 110 credits towards the 180 needed for a degree in the scientific discipline I like, I know full well that without the training, you do not have the background to be judging what is relevant in a discipline. 
And that man simply does not have the background, neither does Sowell.


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 25, 2014)

Well....... at the end of the day, credentials for "climate science" are essentially immaterial.........
*

Most of the “solutions” to global warming offered by the global elites involve the widespread impoverishment of much of the human population by limiting the production of goods, and the use of transportation resources. Such “solutions” would massively undermine advances in the standards of living for billions of ordinary people just as they are finally starting to come out of grinding levels of poverty.*



Must Free-Marketers Reject Global Warming The Mises Economics Blog The Circle Bastiat


Now.....perhaps the people of the United States will embrace living in abject poverty to "save the planet".


I'm thinking its not very likely.


----------



## Crick (Oct 25, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> A 'climate scientist', must first of all, be a scientist. The man in the OP is not a scientist. Therefore, he does not qualify for that title. As someone who is about 110 credits towards the 180 needed for a degree in the scientific discipline I like, I know full well that without the training, you do not have the background to be judging what is relevant in a discipline.
> And that man simply does not have the background, neither does Sowell.



I disagree Rocks.  Benny Peiser is a respected scientist.  The problem with the OP is that he is an anthropologist, not a climate scientist.  Thus the headline of the OP is a falsehood.


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 25, 2014)

The above link.......references Guy McPherson, Professor Emeritus of Natural Resources, Ecology, etc., at the University of Arizona, (presumably man-made) climate change is “irreversible” and, basically, we’re all doomed.

Lets assume he's 100% correct.

So......what?

Connect the dots here folks......embracing the AGW view will be of *no* consequence in the real world without profound changes in peoples standards of living. Think about it......are people really going to give up washing machines, air conditioning and cars because 100 climate scientists say we're doomed?


You're going to have to have a massive depopulation event to make it happen which some believe is imminent........the only conceivable way the science will end up mattering.

LOL....have to start thinking about shit like EBOLA. Almost none of the American population knows that EBOLA in Africa is contained somewhat ONLY because of the hot climate!!!! Put it in a cold environment and the aerosol factor increases significantly........so says the Army’s Infectious Disease Research Unit....


Washington s Blog Business Investing Economy Politics World News Energy Environment Science Technology Washington s Blog


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 25, 2014)

Note how *NONE* of the AGW contingent can even type *one single word* in response to post # 153 of this thread.


----------



## Crick (Oct 25, 2014)

Note how little response your rants deserve.  None really.  That anyone here talks to you at all is due simply to the continued existence of common courtesy.


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 25, 2014)

Crick said:


> Note how little response your rants deserve.  None really.  That anyone here talks to you at all is due simply to the continued existence of common courtesy.





= Im winning.



No responses to the cricket vid means inability to respond s0n!!


You and the other AGW nutters have no answer to my last 4 posts. Zero. None. Nada. Egg. Ummmm......its a character trait of all far lefties. When you are left there looking like youre standing there with your thumb is up your ass, what else is there to do except ignore by not responding??



More Proof the skeptics are WINNING US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


*3,300 posts and counting s0n!!! Heading swiftly to 150,000 views.


In fact, anybody goes on BING and searches "skeptics" and "winning", it is now on PAGE 1 of the search!!!!!*


You could be on here for 500 years son and none of your threads is ever going to reach 1/10th of such epicness. Because ALL of the momentum in 2014 is with the skeptics.


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 25, 2014)

wheres my spike the football vid???


----------



## Bfgrn (Oct 25, 2014)

Crick said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > A 'climate scientist', must first of all, be a scientist. The man in the OP is not a scientist. Therefore, he does not qualify for that title. As someone who is about 110 credits towards the 180 needed for a degree in the scientific discipline I like, I know full well that without the training, you do not have the background to be judging what is relevant in a discipline.
> ...



Peiser was educated in West Germany and studied political science, English, and sports science in Frankfurt.


----------



## Bfgrn (Oct 25, 2014)

Youch said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Youch said:
> ...



YOU said Sowell is smart "for a black man". That is as 'racist' as any white supremacist.


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 25, 2014)

this just in......and top headline on *DRUDGE* right now........


US Having Its Coolest Year On Record Real Science

Dr Peiser FTMFW!!!!




But hey......keep posting up those credentials of the *"real scientists"* s0ns!!


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 25, 2014)




----------



## percysunshine (Oct 25, 2014)

.

Al Gore is my hero. Rocket Scientist extraordinaire.

.


----------



## Bfgrn (Oct 25, 2014)

*Confusing Weather and Climate: The False Debate About Global Warming*

With the onset of winter's cold each year we can look forward to the reliable appearance of _Skepticana deniacus_, an increasingly popular bird of prey that feeds on ignorance and fear. With the regularity of a finely tuned pendulum, as soon as the temperature hits freezing this annoying species of fowl cries out with indignation that global warming must be a farce. After all, how could the world be warming if snow is falling outside?

_Climate_ describes atmospheric behavior averaged over long time periods of decades and centuries across large geographic areas. _Weather_ describes actual local atmospheric conditions over short periods of time, from hours to days. Weather is all about the actual state of the atmosphere with respect to wind, temperature, moisture, pressure, cloud cover and other instantaneous measurements. Climate is a composite of weather conditions averaged over many years. Think of weather as a single datum point and climate as a large collection of those data.

Better yet, think of weather as a one-night stand. Then climate would be raising the kid resulting from that night for the next two decades. One immediately leads to the other, but the two are completely different phenomenon. And that is why we have two distinct fields of study: meteorology and climatology.

The distinction between weather and climate becomes critical in understanding global warming. Let's look at what is happening right now. A persistent high pressure over the Arctic is acting like a big boulder in a fast moving river, causing the jet stream to flow south deep into the United States. With that big dip in the jet stream comes cold Arctic air. So we are all freezing our fannies off this week. But that has absolutely nothing to do with global warming. We can see catastrophic effects of climate change with an increase in average global temperature of just 2 to 3 degrees. If the arctic air warmed from -70 to -67 degrees, you would still freeze your buttocks off when that air blew south, but the impact on the global climate would nevertheless be profound over time. Weather is right now, the need to put on a thick winter coat to stop that cold arctic air from nipping off a limb from frost bite. Climate is the fact that the arctic air is warmer than expected, even if still cold enough to kill. Arctic air will always be brutally cold even in the most extreme cases of global warming. Snow and ice will always be a winter reality. So stop already with the embarrassing nonsense that climate change can't be real because it is cold outside. Nobody ever said climate change meant the end of winter. Grow up.


----------



## Youch (Oct 26, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Youch said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



You just lost all integrity.
I never said what you claimed.
Only a simpleton would make such a claim when anyone could go back and read for themselves what was posted.
Few on this earth revere Thomas Sowell as much as I. I've purchased and read most of his books. 
I am in impressed with him, as are millions of others.
Oh yes, and he is black.  Imagine that, millions of conservatives respecting a black man with a brain.  Kind of like with Williams, Carson, Cain, Thomas, Watts, and the like.....
Odd, that you accuse me, a person of color, as being white supremacist.  Just proves you are an idiot.


----------



## Youch (Oct 26, 2014)

Truman123 said:


> How is this thread still going?
> 
> Wasn't it DOA for people with basic reading skills?



Right, people make a false claim, cannot support it, and are thus unwilling to devote a topic to the subject.  Just points to the feeble arguments rife on this forum. 

This is typical of the Left.  All emotion, but when pressed, fail to show up.


----------



## Bfgrn (Oct 26, 2014)

Youch said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Youch said:
> ...



I don't care if you are pink and green. Saying a man is smart is WORLDS apart from saying he is smart 'for a black man'. WHY are there different standards???


----------



## Youch (Oct 26, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Youch said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



I didn't say "for a black man," asshole. 

Learn to read. Learn to read and respond with the intent to understand.

Are you changing the subject because you were losing?  Or for some other reason?


----------



## Bfgrn (Oct 26, 2014)

Youch said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Youch said:
> ...



Then you revere a hack. 

Sowell is smart. Just smart enough to know that if he ever bites the hand that feeds him, you will never hear from him again. When Sowell wrote "The Housing Boom and Bust", telling the truth was never an option. If he had told the truth that the financial crisis had NOTHING to do with the Community Reinvestment Act and it was caused by the private sector and wealthy investors and speculators, he would have suffered the same fate as Bruce Bartlett and David Frum. Banishment by the right wing cartel funding machine. The book is a prime example of just how stupid and dogmatic folks on the right really are.


----------



## Bfgrn (Oct 26, 2014)

Youch said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Youch said:
> ...



In essence that is EXACTLY what you said.


----------



## Bfgrn (Oct 26, 2014)

Youch said:


> Truman123 said:
> 
> 
> > How is this thread still going?
> ...



LOL...I didn't agree with you about Thomas Sowell, so what did YOU do...you came back with an ALL EMOTION reply...you accused me of being a 'racist'.


----------



## Youch (Oct 26, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Youch said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...




I suggest actually reading one of his books.  Otherwise, is just appears that your an idiot.

I see a emoinal trend with you.....I enjoy the intellectual prowess of Sowell, and you reduce yourself to "revere" and "racist", which is both extreme, nonsensical, and emotional, making you an idiot.  Prove me wrong.





Bfgrn said:


> Youch said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



No, it isn't. Not even by a long shot.

I am convinced you don't know how to read.  Which explains why you are a liberal.

Words mean things.....




Bfgrn said:


> Youch said:
> 
> 
> > Truman123 said:
> ...





Bfgrn said:


> Youch said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...





Youch said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Youch said:
> ...





Bfgrn said:


> Youch said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...





Bfgrn said:


> Youch said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...





Bfgrn said:


> Youch said:
> 
> 
> > Truman123 said:
> ...



I'm convinced you're not smart. Or, you're 14.   Sorry.  I've gotta move onward and upward.


----------



## Youch (Oct 26, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Youch said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



YOu just convinced all members and readers that you cannot read with the intent to understand. As such, I don't need to respond to a non sequitur.


----------



## Crick (Oct 26, 2014)

Okay, fine.

Skookerasshole, where did you get the idea that Benny Peiser was a "leading climate scientist"?


----------



## Bfgrn (Oct 26, 2014)

Youch said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Youch said:
> ...



WOW...you are so obtuse, you don't even know what YOU posted. Let's recap...and let's see WHO first injected the words "*revere*" and "*racist*"

Post 102:

Bfgrn: Sowell is not a brilliant man. He is a lightweight who will always contort his story to please his handlers. He is incapable of critical thought.

Youch: You've obviously not read any of his books or sat in any of his lectures. You know nothing of the man. Among the smartest black men that ever lived. And you denigrate him. Are you a *racist*??

Post 166: 

Youch: Few on this earth *revere* Thomas Sowell as much as I.

And finally, YOU are the one who denigrates Sowell when you made the statement "Among the smartest *black* men that ever lived"

But clearly if you are too stupid to even remember what you posted, you are also too obtuse to understand what it means...


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 26, 2014)

I'm laughing........

Post up the names of "Thomas Sowell" or "Rush Limbaugh" on any message board and watch the heads of the far left explode!!!!


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 26, 2014)

Crick said:


> Okay, fine.
> 
> Skookerasshole, where did you get the idea that Benny Peiser was a "leading climate scientist"?




this just in......and top headline on *DRUDGE* right now........


US Having Its Coolest Year On Record Real Science

Dr Peiser FTMFW!!!!




But hey......keep posting up those credentials of the *"real scientists"* s0ns!!


----------



## Bfgrn (Oct 26, 2014)

Just in...a blogger is the k00k's source...

* Steven Goddard (Tony Heller)*
* Credentials*

Bachelor of Science.
Bachelor in Electrical Engineering.
*Source: *[1]

* Background*
Steven Goddard is a global warming skeptic and guest author at the climate change skeptic blog _WattsUpWithThat _(WUWT). The name “Steven Goddard” is a pseudonym used by Tony Heller, according to the Heartland Institute. [2]

Goddard is known for a 2008 article in _The Register _where he posited that Arctic Sea ice is not receding and claimed that data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) showing the opposite was incorrect. Goddard later issued a retraction on his statement. [3], [4]

Goddard operates a blog titled *“Real Science” blog*, originally Real-Science.com, and now as the Wordpress blog _Real Science_. Goddard has gone to some lengths to keep his identity hidden and his blog's web domain has been blocked from any identifying WhoIs information.

*Publications*
Steve Goddard does not have a background in climate science. He has primarily published his articles in blogs and newspapers using a pseudonym, and it is unlikely he has ever been published in a peer-reviewed journal on the subject.


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 26, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Just in...a blogger is the k00k's source...
> 
> * Steven Goddard (Tony Heller)*
> * Credentials*
> ...





Hmmmm..........

My only question then would be.......why is your side losing so decisively???


----------



## Crick (Oct 26, 2014)

Losing?  To you?  Man, have you suffered a disconnect.


----------



## SSDD (Oct 27, 2014)

Nah...your side is losing.  Did you hear that NPR has gutted its environmental section.  People, even liberals tune off when the global warming lie is broadcast these days.  Only the real nut jobs still believe and contrary to your belief, you are in a very small minority...not really worth note even at NPR.  How does it feel?


----------



## Bfgrn (Oct 27, 2014)

skookerasbil said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Just in...a blogger is the k00k's source...
> ...



Math problems k00K?

*Percentage of Americans who believe past global warming has been caused by humans or in equal part by humans and natural fluctuations *


----------



## Bfgrn (Oct 27, 2014)

Pew


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 27, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...






Lots of people believe in Santa Claus too s0n......

Far lefties miss the point completely. There is the science and then there is public policy. Public policy is moved only by significant concerns from the public. The term "green" has been created by the Reality Manufacturing Company. Talked about a lot.......but almost invariably it just that: talk. Not a single AGW nut can post up a single link displaying how the science is mattering outside the realm of the internet and a newspaper or two.......

Fact is, renewable energy continues to be a joke.( see graphs on this thread ). Carbon trading is on life support. Europe has suddenly gone hog wild for fossil fuels like natural gas and coal. Because their economies cant compete without the stuff. The US will become the largest oil producer by years end. China coal use? Off the hook s0ns!! India too. Why? Because nations like cheap energy because they can compete economically. All this stuff might not be important to the typical global warming k00k.......but it matters to all the non-k00ks."Costs" matter in life......but not to the global warming  mental cases.

Scores of links can be found in the pages of THIS link >> More Proof the skeptics are WINNING US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum  . Its the thread that explodes the heads of the handful of AGW mental cases on this forum.


At the end of the day......."climate science" is nothing but a career for some and an internet hobby for all the rest. Lots of people believe in lots of things. Duh. Measuring behavior is the only thing that matters.


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 27, 2014)

Heres the bottom line.......

Fossil fuels are going to *dominate* the energy landscape for decades and decades and decades.

% chances of the AGW nutters changing that?


ZERO


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 27, 2014)

On the big science of WINNING...........


----------



## Roadrunner (Oct 27, 2014)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Benny Peiser DeSmogBlog
> ...


Cryptozoologists now blame global warming on the notoriously rancid bigfoot farts.


----------



## Thunderbird (Oct 27, 2014)

What's interesting about AGW is that so many prestigious organizations have signed on as believers. If they are wrong, it represents a huge indictment of the whole media-academic complex.


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 27, 2014)

Thunderbird said:


> What's interesting about AGW is that so many prestigious organizations have signed on as believers. If they are wrong, it represents a huge indictment of the whole media-academic complex.





Great post dude!!!


More bad news for the climate obsessed.


----------



## Bfgrn (Oct 27, 2014)

skookerasbil said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...



Significant concern is there to move public policy. And as we continue to use fossil fuels, the days of power plants spewing unabated carcinogens is over.  And as I have shown, the concern of the next generation is stronger.

*Majority of red-state Americans believe climate change is real, study shows*
_Study suggests far-reaching acceptance of climate change in traditionally Republican states such as Texas and Oklahoma_

A vast majority of red-state Americans believe climate change is real and at least two-thirds of those want the government to cut greenhouse gas emissions, new research revealed on Wednesday.

The research, by Stanford University social psychologist Jon Krosnick, confounds the conventional wisdom of climate denial as a central pillar of Republican politics, and practically an article of faith for Tea Party conservatives.

Instead, the findings suggest far-reaching acceptance that climate change is indeed occurring and is caused by human activities, even in such reliably red states as Texas and Oklahoma.

“To me, the most striking finding that is new today was that we could not find a single state in the country where climate scepticism was in the majority,” Krosnick said in an interview.

States that voted for Barack Obama, as expected, also believe climate change is occurring and support curbs on carbon pollution. Some 88% of Massachusetts residents believe climate change is real.

But Texas and Oklahoma are among the reddest of red states and are represented in Congress by Republicans who regularly dismiss the existence of climate change or its attendant risks.

Congressman Joe Barton of Texas and Senator Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma stand out for their regular denials of climate change as a “hoax”, even among Republican ranks.

However, the research found 87% of Oklahomans and 84% of Texans accepted that climate change was occurring.

Seventy-six percent of Americans in both states also believed the government should step in to limit greenhouse gas emissions produced by industry.

In addition, the research indicated substantial support for Obama's decision to use the Environmental Protection Agency to cut emissions from power plants. The polling found at least 62% of Americans in favour of action cutting greenhouse gas emissions from plants.

Once again, Texas was also solidly lined up with action, with 79% of voters supporting regulation of power plants.

Guardian


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 27, 2014)

I think that a number of people have been hitting the nail on the head with a certain word they keep posting. LOSING. 

You see, people in Texas saw the state losing an unacceptable percentage of their trees to a  combination of drought and fire a short time ago. Those in Oklahoma have seen precipitation events and droughts reducing their crops. In fact, all over the nation, we have seen financial losses from a changing climate. Alaska is warming to the point that much of their infrastructure is being adversely affected by the very rapid warming there. Yes, we are all losing because of a changing climate, changes that we ourselves, have caused. 

We saw the reactions to that in the march in New York and other cities. And we are going to see political reactions, as people wake up to the fact that their own politicians are supporting damaging them.


----------



## Bfgrn (Oct 27, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> I think that a number of people have been hitting the nail on the head with a certain word they keep posting. LOSING.
> 
> You see, people in Texas saw the state losing an unacceptable percentage of their trees to a  combination of drought and fire a short time ago. Those in Oklahoma have seen precipitation events and droughts reducing their crops. In fact, all over the nation, we have seen financial losses from a changing climate. Alaska is warming to the point that much of their infrastructure is being adversely affected by the very rapid warming there. Yes, we are all losing because of a changing climate, changes that we ourselves, have caused.
> 
> We saw the reactions to that in the march in New York and other cities. And we are going to see political reactions, as people wake up to the fact that their own politicians are supporting damaging them.



Here is a great article about how k00ks have taken over the GOP...

*The Coming GOP Civil War Over Climate Change*
*Science, storms, and demographics are starting to change minds among the rank and file. *

May 9, 2013 Kerry Emanuel registered as a Republican as soon he turned 18, in 1973. The aspiring scientist was turned off by what he saw as the Left’s blind ideology. “I had friends who denied Pol Pot was killing people in Cambodia,” he says. “I reacted very badly to the triumph of ideology over reason.”

Back then, Emanuel saw the Republican Party as the political fit for a data-driven scientist. Today, the professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology is considered one of the United States’ foremost authorities on climate change—particularly on how rising carbon pollution will increase the intensity of hurricanes.

In January 2012, just before South Carolina’s Republican presidential primary, the Charleston-based Christian Coalition of America, one of the most influential advocacy groups in conservative politics, flew Emanuel down to meet with the GOP presidential candidates. Perhaps an unlikely prophet of doom where global warming is concerned, the coalition has begun to push Republicans to take action on climate change, out of worry that coming catastrophes could hit the next generation hard, especially the world’s poor.

The meetings didn’t take. “[Newt] Gingrich and [Mitt] Romney understood, … and I think they even believed the evidence and understood the risk,” Emanuel says. “*But they were so terrified by the extremists in their party that in the primaries they felt compelled to deny it. Which is not good leadership, good integrity. I got a low impression of them as leader*s.” Throughout the Republican presidential primaries, every candidate but one—former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman, who was knocked out of the race at the start—questioned, denied, or outright mocked the science of climate change.

Soon after his experience in South Carolina, Emanuel changed his lifelong Republican Party registration to independent. “The idea that you could look a huge amount of evidence straight in the face and, for purely ideological reasons, deny it, is anathema to me,” he says.

Emanuel predicts that many more voters like him, people who think of themselves as conservative or independent but are turned off by what they see as a willful denial of science and facts, will also abandon the GOP, unless the party comes to an honest reckoning about global warming.

And a quiet, but growing, number of other Republicans fear the same thing. Already, deep fissures are emerging between, on one side, a base of ideological voters and lawmakers with strong ties to powerful tea-party groups and super PACs funded by the fossil-fuel industry who see climate change as a false threat concocted by liberals to justify greater government control; and on the other side, a quiet group of moderates, younger voters, and leading conservative intellectuals who fear that if Republicans continue to dismiss or deny climate change, the party will become irrelevant.

“There is a divide within the party,” says Samuel Thernstrom, who served on President George W. Bush’s Council on Environmental Quality and is now a scholar of environmental policy at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. *“The position that climate change is a hoax is untenable.”*

more


----------



## SSDD (Oct 27, 2014)

skookerasbil said:


> Heres the bottom line.......
> 
> Fossil fuels are going to *dominate* the energy landscape for decades and decades and decades.
> 
> ...



Did you hear about NPR gutting its environmental reporting staff?  Seems that even liberals stop listening when the reporting turns to climate change.  It must be terrible for them to have even NPR say that their cult isn't really worth reporting on any more.


----------



## mamooth (Oct 27, 2014)

I see both Thunderbird and Skook fell hard for yet another denier data-fudging scam, that one from the "Global Warming Policy Foundation". That's a British denier thinktank, a "charity" that keeps its funding source secret. "Leading climate scientist" Dr. Peiser works for the GWPF. It's important to identify sources, because deniers so rarely do. They just pass the fudged data down the line until nobody remembers the source, considering each fudged image to be a sort of religious iconography that can't be questioned.

The sad thing is, they never learn. All the denier leaders get caught fudging everything over and over, and the rubes just run back for more. The denier rubes all want to be lied to so very badly, hence they'll believe anything.

If any actually cares about the data ... meaning deniers will refuse to look ... the problems with that graph are an unmentioned baseline shift, and deliberately using the wrong emission scenario. Tamino gives a detailed overview of it.

Hansen 8217 s 1988 Predictions Open Mind



Thunderbird said:


>


----------



## Thunderbird (Oct 28, 2014)

mamooth said:


> I see both Thunderbird and Skook fell hard for yet another denier data-fudging scam, that one from the "Global Warming Policy Foundation".





> That's a British denier thinktank, a "charity" that keeps its funding source secret.





> The sad thing is, they never learn. All the denier leaders get caught fudging everything over and over, and the rubes just run back for more.





> If any actually cares about the data ... meaning deniers will refuse to look


Not sure what your point is, the NASA GISS data also shows a "pause".

Do you deny:

1) There has been a "pause" in global warming.
*A Science-Based Rebuttal to Global Warming Alarmism
Global Temperature Update: No global warming at all for 17 years 9 months*

2) AGW devotees have made climate predictions which turned out to be wrong.
*The big list of failed climate predictions*

3) AGW devotees are making fortunes off AGW.
*Al Gore, the world's first carbon billionaire?
Rolling Stone exposes Goldman Sachs and the carbon credit scam*

Yes or no?


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 30, 2014)

Thunderbird said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > I see both Thunderbird and Skook fell hard for yet another denier data-fudging scam, that one from the "Global Warming Policy Foundation".
> ...





Thunderbird.........only the real hard core AGW nutters reject what the rest of the science community is saying. They have to or else their heads would explode.


----------



## Crick (Nov 1, 2014)

Do you actually believe that the rest of the science community agrees with the Global Warming Policy Foundation?  Talk about someone's head exploding...


----------



## Crick (Nov 1, 2014)

*The idea that GWPF is any part of the mainstream science community is absolutely laughable.*

*From SourceWatch.org*
Global Warming Policy Foundation
*Start Up*
The GWPF was founded, curiously, at the same time as the climategate emails were released on the University of Tomsk's server. At the time of its foundation the average age of its trustees was 74. Chairman Nigel Lawson stated "We will certainly be actively involved in monitoring what is being said, in correcting errors where the are errors. The only thing we will not be actively engaged in is what are the causes of the temperature changes on the planet: how much is CO2, how much is solar radiation, how much is cosmic rays. We won't be getting into all that."[5]

*Funding not transparent; just 1.6% comes from memberships*
The Global Warming Policy Foundation does not reveal where its funding comes from.[6] In their first years accounts they say "the soil we till is highly controversial, and anyone who puts their head above the parapet has to be prepared to endure a degree of public vilification. For that reason we offer all our donors the protection of anonymity".[7] The accounts show the extent to which the secretive Foundation is funded by anonymous donors, compared with income from membership fees. Its total income for the period up to 31 July 2010 was *£503,302*, of which only £8,168 (or 1.6%) came from membership contributions. The foundation charges a minimum annual membership fee of £100.[8]

In 2012, the Guardian exposed Lawson's links to coal-fired power companies in Europe.[9]

*Charitable Status*
The GWPF is a registered charity (Number 1131448), which gives it certain tax advantages. Its charitable objectives are stated as: "To advance the public understanding of global warming and of its possible consequences, and also of the measures taken or proposed to be taken in response to it, including by means of the dissemination of the results of the study of and research into (a) the sciences relevant to global warming (b) its impact upon the environment economies and society (c) and the above mentioned measures."[10]

In 2014 the GWPF announced it would be setting up a separate lobbying arm, the Global Policy Warming Forum, after advice from the Charity Commission on the conflict between charitable status and political campaigning.[11]

*Actions*
*CRU email theft - call for enquiry*
In an op-ed announcing the GWPF launch and hopefully predicting failure of the December 2009 United Nations climate change conference in Copenhagen, Nigel Lawson called for a high-level independent inquiry into the content of the emails stolen from the University of East Anglia's _Climatic Research Unit_.[12]

*After 3 govt enquiries cleared climate scientists, a denialist "enquiry" by skeptic Montford*
When the three British Government enquiries into the CRU email saga were completed Dr Benny Peiser of the Global Warming Policy Foundation immediately announced it would to stir the issue up once more.[13] Andrew Montford was commissioned to write an "enquiry" into the climategate emails claims and was paid £3000 for his efforts. The results were released in September 2010.

The choice of Montford was ironic given the serious inaccuracies in his book, The _Hockey Stick Illusion_.[14] Furthermore the Global Warming Policy Foundation's own funding is mired in controversy whilst it enjoys charitable status, yet Montford himself is critical of what he calls 'fake charities'.[15] In his "enquiry" Montford criticized the official enquiries for not including known skeptics on their panels. This is a distortion of the truth however, since the Parliamentary Enquiry at the least included Graham Stringer Labour MP for Blackley and Broughton, a man who has consistently voted _very strongly against_ laws to stop climate change.[16] [17] Montford knows this and records a cosy chat with Stringer on his blog.[18]

*"900 papers" claim; subsequent analysis shows Exxon ties, Energy and Environment papers*
In mid-April 2011, the GWPF provided "900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism Of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm".[19] The blog _Carbon Brief_ analyzed them, and found that -


9 of the top 10 authors had ties to ExxonMobil
"prominent scientists featured on the list didn't agree that their work supported skepticism about anthropogenic global warming - and had unsuccessfully asked for their work to be removed from similar lists in the past", and
the most-cited journal was Energy and Environment, a journal with a very low impact factor whose editors are AGW deniers.[20]
*Location*
The GWPF is located at 1 Carlton House Terrace, London, in a room rented from the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining.[1]

*Personnel*
In November 2009, the GWPF listed:

*Director*

Benny Peiser, Director; a social anthropologist.[21]
Sir James Spooner is Honourary Treasurer
*Board of Trustees*
The Board of Trustees includes:[22]


Lord Barnett
Peter R. Forster (the Bishop of Chester)
Lord Donoughue
Lord Fellowes
Martin Jacomb
Lord Lawson (Chairman)
Henri Lepage
Baroness Nicholson
Lord Andrew Turnbull
*Academic Advisory Council*
_Academic Advisory Council members need not hold academic positions, Benny Peiser reports._[23]

As of February 2013, members are: [24],


Adrian Berry, Viscount Camrose
Samuel Brittan
Ian Byatt
Bob Carter
Vincent Courtillot
Freeman Dyson
Christian Gerondeau
Indur Goklany
William Happer
David Henderson
Terence Kealey (Buckingham University)
Anthony Kelly (GWPF)
Deepak Lal
Richard Lindzen
Ross McKitrick
Robert Mendelsohn, economics professor at Yale University
Alan Peacock (Buckingham University)
Ian Plimer
Paul Reiter
Matt Ridley, writer (Buckingham University Honourary Degree, 2003)
Alan Rudge, electrical engineer
Philip Stott, Professor Emeritus of Biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London
Richard Tol
David Whitehouse, writer
Former members include:


Hal Lewis (d. May 26, 2011[25])
Gwyn Prins
B P Radhakrishna
*Others involved*
The following persons have written reports published by the GWPF, or given lectures sponsored by the GWPF, but are not otherwise part of the group's formal structure.


Phillip Mueller
Indur Goklany
Gordon Hughes
Peter Lilley
Fritz Varenholt
Andrew Montford
Christopher Booker
Cardinal George Pell


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 1, 2014)

Crick said:


> Do you actually believe that the rest of the science community agrees with the Global Warming Policy Foundation?  Talk about someone's head exploding...


 


s0n......youre not getting it.

Back in the 30's, we had the "HeMan Woman Haters Club". It was chaired by this guy named Spanky. Very closed society. The people who supported it felt very strongly about it. Run by kids......they were going to change the world. But nobody outside their little corner of the neighborhood cared.

".....rest of the science community agree's"........

And?


So your closed society of scientists rejects *any* information that doesnt match their science.......the club prevails because they says it does!!!


Take a bow!!! 



Nobody else is caring!!!


----------



## Crick (Nov 1, 2014)

Son, YOU'RE not getting it.

The Global Warming Policy Foundation and science have NOTHING in common.  No one is rejecting the science GWPF is doing because GWPF isn't doing any.


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 1, 2014)

Crick said:


> Son, YOU'RE not getting it.
> 
> The Global Warming Policy Foundation and science have NOTHING in common.  No one is rejecting the science GWPF is doing because GWPF isn't doing any.




But so what?

In your world, it matters. It doesn't matter to the rest of the world. Sorry s0n. People like Peiser have come along in droves in recent years and obviously had an impact. Only a mental case would not concur. Acceptance of AGW has fallen like a stone in water as I have astutely displayed in here many, many, many times!! Couple this with the fact that a huge majority feel the climate scientists have manipulated the data big time and its a Jonestown in 2014 for the AGW crowd.


s0n.......your closed club "consensus" science is having zero impact on public policy.( see He-Man Woman Haters Club analogy......needed for the connect the dots challenged  ).

Green energy is a joke.

= the "consensus science" is an internet science hobby!!!!!


----------



## jon_berzerk (Nov 1, 2014)

Thunderbird said:


> What's interesting about AGW is that so many prestigious organizations have signed on as believers. If they are wrong, it represents a huge indictment of the whole media-academic complex.



great post


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 1, 2014)

September 23, 2014
*Polls show most Americans believe in climate change, but give it low priority.*
*
*
Most Americans Believe in Climate Change But Give It Low Priority Pew Research Center
*

*
= an internet hobby for the climate obsessed.


----------



## Crick (Nov 1, 2014)

So you and all the deniers here are in disagreement with most scientists and most Americans.

Got it.  You're fringe and you know it.


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 1, 2014)

Since the AGW contingent is failing so miserably in moving the public consciousness, I have been saying for a long time, they need a Plan B.

Publicize shit that is going to actually resonate with the public ( see above link that people are not caring about global warming in 2014 ).......


Global Warming Could Create Beer Shortage Drink-a-Pint


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 1, 2014)

Crick said:


> So you and all the deniers here are in disagreement with most scientists and most Americans.
> 
> Got it.  You're fringe and you know it.






Indeed s0n!!!

Then why are you falling all over yourself to post up your stuff in here? ( shit.....over 3,000 posts since the summer....all in this forum  )


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 1, 2014)

God I love this forum.........


The social oddballs of the world are oddballs because they missed all the memo's at an early age that public embarrassment does matter in the real world!!! In other words, the social landscape is skewed for these people. They get humiliated........and take bows!!!


----------



## Crick (Nov 1, 2014)

The level of your disconnect is astounding.


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 1, 2014)




----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 1, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Sowell's a political pundit, not a scientist, and has little training in any scientific discipline. Economics is hardly a science, and he is hardly a leading light in that discipline.


This is like the left quoting Michale Mann...  or Peter Glieck..  both lying pieces of shit and neither of them climate scientists.. Yet you tout them as truth and fact...  BUT that's Different...   Dumb Fucks cant see the hypocrisy they spew!


----------



## Crick (Nov 2, 2014)

You think Michael Mann and Peter Gleick aren't climate scientists?

*From Wikipedia's article in Dr Mann:*

*Michael E. Mann* (born 1965) is an American climatologist and geophysicist,[1] currently director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, who has contributed to the scientific understanding of historic climate change based on thetemperature record of the past 1000 years. He has pioneered techniques to find patterns in past climate change, and to isolate climate signals from "noisy data."[3]

As lead author of a paper produced in 1998 with co-authors Raymond S. Bradley andMalcolm K. Hughes, Mann introduced innovative statistical techniques to find regional variations in a hemispherical climate reconstruction covering the past 600 years. In 1999 the same team used these techniques to produce a reconstruction over the past 1,000 years (MBH99) which was dubbed the "hockey stick graph" because of its shape. He was one of 8 lead authors of the "Observed Climate Variability and Change” chapter of theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Scientific Assessment Reportpublished in 2001. A graph based on the MBH99 paper was highlighted in several parts of the report, and was given wide publicity. The IPCC acknowledged that his work, along with that of the many other lead authors and review editors, contributed to the award of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, which was won jointly by the IPCC and Al Gore.

He was organizing committee chair for the National Academy of Sciences Frontiers of Science in 2003 and has received a number of honors and awards including selection byScientific American as one of the fifty leading visionaries in science and technology in 2002. In 2012 he was inducted as a Fellow of the American Geophysical Union and was awarded the Hans Oeschger Medal of the European Geosciences Union. In 2013 he was elected a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society, and awarded the status of distinguished professor in Penn State's College of Earth and Mineral Sciences.

Mann is author of more than 160 peer-reviewed and edited publications, and has published two books: _Dire Predictions: Understanding Global Warming in 2008_ and _The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines_, published in early 2012. In 2013 the European Geosciences Union described his publication record as "outstanding for a scientist of his relatively young age". He is also a co-founder and contributor to the climatology blog RealClimate.

*From Wikipedia's article on Dr Gleick:*

*Peter H. Gleick* (/ˌɡlik/; born 1956) is an American scientist working on issues related to theenvironment, economic development, international security, and scientific ethics and integrity, with a focus on global freshwater challenges.[1] He works at the Pacific Institute inOakland, California, which he co-founded in 1987. In 2003 he was awarded a MacArthur Fellowship for his work on water resources. Among the issues he has addressed are conflicts over water resources,[2] the impacts of climate change on water resources, the human right to water, and the problems of the billions of people without safe, affordable, and reliable water and sanitation. In 2006 he was elected to the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. In 2011, Gleick was the launch Chairman[3] of the "new task force on scientific ethics and integrity" of the American Geophysical Union.[4] Gleick received the International Water Resources Association (IWRA) Ven Te Chow Memorial Award in 2011,[5] and that same year he and the Pacific Institute were awarded the first U.S. Water Prize.[6] In February 2012, Gleick admitted to unauthorized distribution of documents he had obtained from The Heartland Institute under someone else's name, and took a voluntary leave of absence from the Pacific Institute; he was reinstated following an investigation.[7] In April 2012, Gleick presented the Oxford Amnesty Lecture on the human right to water at Oxford University.[8]
****************************************************************************
This is where you need to listen to that voice that tells you not to lie; particularly (in the self-protective way those voices always lean) in ways that any reasonably intelligent person would know no one will believe and thus instantly tell everyone of your dishonesty.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Nov 2, 2014)

skookerasbil said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > So you and all the deniers here are in disagreement with most scientists and most Americans.
> ...


----------



## Crick (Nov 2, 2014)

Crick said:


> So you and all the deniers here are in disagreement with most scientists and most Americans.
> 
> Got it.  You're fringe and you know it.





skookerasbil said:


> Indeed s0n!!!
> 
> Then why are you falling all over yourself to post up your stuff in here? ( shit.....over 3,000 posts since the summer....all in this forum )
> 
> *--LOL*





jon_berzerk said:


> [blank]



Had you intended to say anything here?


----------



## Crick (Nov 2, 2014)

You think Michael Mann and Peter Gleick aren't climate scientists?

*From Wikipedia's article in Dr Mann:*

*Michael E. Mann* (born 1965) is an American climatologist and geophysicist,[1] currently director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, who has contributed to the scientific understanding of historic climate change based on thetemperature record of the past 1000 years. He has pioneered techniques to find patterns in past climate change, and to isolate climate signals from "noisy data."[3]

As lead author of a paper produced in 1998 with co-authors Raymond S. Bradley andMalcolm K. Hughes, Mann introduced innovative statistical techniques to find regional variations in a hemispherical climate reconstruction covering the past 600 years. In 1999 the same team used these techniques to produce a reconstruction over the past 1,000 years (MBH99) which was dubbed the "hockey stick graph" because of its shape. He was one of 8 lead authors of the "Observed Climate Variability and Change” chapter of theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Scientific Assessment Reportpublished in 2001. A graph based on the MBH99 paper was highlighted in several parts of the report, and was given wide publicity. The IPCC acknowledged that his work, along with that of the many other lead authors and review editors, contributed to the award of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, which was won jointly by the IPCC and Al Gore.

He was organizing committee chair for the National Academy of Sciences Frontiers of Science in 2003 and has received a number of honors and awards including selection byScientific American as one of the fifty leading visionaries in science and technology in 2002. In 2012 he was inducted as a Fellow of the American Geophysical Union and was awarded the Hans Oeschger Medal of the European Geosciences Union. In 2013 he was elected a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society, and awarded the status of distinguished professor in Penn State's College of Earth and Mineral Sciences.

Mann is author of more than 160 peer-reviewed and edited publications, and has published two books: _Dire Predictions: Understanding Global Warming in 2008_ and _The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines_, published in early 2012. In 2013 the European Geosciences Union described his publication record as "outstanding for a scientist of his relatively young age". He is also a co-founder and contributor to the climatology blog RealClimate.

*From Wikipedia's article on Dr Gleick:*

*Peter H. Gleick* (/ˌɡlik/; born 1956) is an American scientist working on issues related to theenvironment, economic development, international security, and scientific ethics and integrity, with a focus on global freshwater challenges.[1] He works at the Pacific Institute inOakland, California, which he co-founded in 1987. In 2003 he was awarded a MacArthur Fellowship for his work on water resources. Among the issues he has addressed are conflicts over water resources,[2] the impacts of climate change on water resources, the human right to water, and the problems of the billions of people without safe, affordable, and reliable water and sanitation. In 2006 he was elected to the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. In 2011, Gleick was the launch Chairman[3] of the "new task force on scientific ethics and integrity" of the American Geophysical Union.[4] Gleick received the International Water Resources Association (IWRA) Ven Te Chow Memorial Award in 2011,[5] and that same year he and the Pacific Institute were awarded the first U.S. Water Prize.[6] In February 2012, Gleick admitted to unauthorized distribution of documents he had obtained from The Heartland Institute under someone else's name, and took a voluntary leave of absence from the Pacific Institute; he was reinstated following an investigation.[7] In April 2012, Gleick presented the Oxford Amnesty Lecture on the human right to water at Oxford University.[8]
****************************************************************************
This is where you need to listen to that voice that tells you not to lie; particularly (in the self-protective way those voices always lean) in ways that any reasonably intelligent person would know no one will believe and thus instantly tell everyone of your dishonesty.

Billy, I think poster Jon Berserk was trying to hide this.  But you and I both know it's important.  We know that when you post up obvious falsehoods, you do it intentionally.  You want to be caught.  And punished.  Humiliated for all to see.  Kinky Billy Boy.


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 2, 2014)

The mental cases are still talking about credentials.....pulling the distraction BS as only a committed far lefty can do!!!

Level of gay?

Exceedingly high!!!


Links on how the science is mattering please????


----------



## mamooth (Nov 2, 2014)

Skook, your constant displays of homophobic bigotry aren't helping your cause.

Plus, they make it look like you're repressing.

My suggestion? Switch back to anti-woman bigotry.


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 2, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Skook, your constant displays of homophobic bigotry aren't helping your cause.
> 
> Plus, they make it look like you're repressing.
> 
> My suggestion? Switch back to anti-woman bigotry.





Links please????


Please with the distraction bs.......


All we are asking for is one!!!


----------



## Crick (Nov 2, 2014)

skookerasbil said:


> Links on how the science is mattering please



I've got a way more efficient idea.  Why don't you try to find us some links that indicate climate science doesn't matter to the real world?


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 2, 2014)

Crick said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Links on how the science is mattering please
> ...





incoherent

Links please......I started asking in here 2 years ago.

If the science were mattering, this graph wouldn't look like this >>>>

[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/8abb9baf6-4.jpg.html]
	
[/URL]



Links please.........


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 2, 2014)

skookerasbil said:


> *Leading Climate Scientist, Dr Peiser*



ROTFLMAO......one of the kookster's little jokes....or possibly brain-farts....

Dr. Benny Peiser is not a "_climate scientist_" AT ALL, let alone a "_leading_" one.

*Peiser was educated in West Germany and studied political science, English, and sports science in Frankfurt.[1]
Peiser's John Moores University departmental webpage described him as:[2]
* Senior Lecturer in Social Anthropology & Sport Sociology, Liverpool John Moores University
* Main research interests:*
** societal evolution and neo-catastrophism
* social implications of historical impact disasters and the current impact hazard
* ritualised and sanctioned violence
* origins and evolution of sport*​*According to a search of 22,000 academic journals, Peiser has published 3 research papers in peer-reviewed journals: Sports Medicine, 2006; Journal of Sports Sciences (2004); and, Bioastronomy 2002: life among the stars (2004). None of these studies are related to human-induced climate change.*
(source - Wikipedia)

He is a paid AGW denier, parroting the propaganda invented by the fossil fuel industry and their billionaire investors.


----------



## SSDD (Nov 3, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > *Leading Climate Scientist, Dr Peiser*
> ...




So what you are saying is that an ad hominem is the best argument you can muster....no surprise...it is, after all, what you do.  I predict an ad hominem against me as soon as you read this.


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 3, 2014)

The AGW k00ks have been on this forum for years talking about "paid deniers"........and my question is.......to what end???


SSDD......whats the point dude? Have you been able to figure this out?


[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/8abb9baf6-4.jpg.html]
	
[/URL]



Who is not winning?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 3, 2014)

skookerasbil said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Do you actually believe that the rest of the science community agrees with the Global Warming Policy Foundation?  Talk about someone's head exploding...
> ...


 This post was precious.  Thanks for the trip down memory lane.  I loved the 'he man women hater club' bit when I was a kid.  Only back then!!!!!! Thank you sir. 

BTW, the rest was spot on as well, and as usual from you!!


----------



## jc456 (Nov 3, 2014)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > So you and all the deniers here are in disagreement with most scientists and most Americans.
> ...


Again, unable to think outside the box I see.  --LOL...


----------



## jc456 (Nov 3, 2014)

an article posted on WUWT

link....The Logarithmic Effect of Carbon Dioxide Watts Up With That


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 3, 2014)

SSDD said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...



No, little retard, what I said is that your piece-of-crap lying OP called this wacko stooge Peiser a "_leading climate scientist_" when, in fact, he is a social anthropologist specializing in sports sociology. He has no education or training or experience in any field of science that is in any way connected to the climate sciences. He is a phony 'expert' stooging for the fossil fuel industry, for whom you are either a retarded dupe or a paid troll, but either way, a damned liar.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 3, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


 As phoney as any scientist that doesn't run an experiment that proves a hypothetical position.  So since none of your scientists can show in an experiment that 120-PPM of CO2 drives temperatures or climate, Peiser is up there with your best. Thanks man!!!!!


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 3, 2014)

jc456 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


More denier cult idiocy and denial of reality. The Greenhouse Effect is a fact that is very well established scientifically. Too bad you're too stupid to comprehend the science.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 3, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


 I agree, too bad you fall in as a faither!!!!!


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 3, 2014)

jc456 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Denier cult jargon that is utterly meaningless in the face of the overwhelming worldwide scientific consensus on Athropogenic Global Warming.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 3, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


 WRONG!!!!!!!!!


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 3, 2014)

jc456 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


CRAZY!!!!!


----------



## jc456 (Nov 3, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


 You are!!!!!!


----------



## jc456 (Nov 3, 2014)

Hey Isaac, I can't believe anything you post until you back it up with proof.  until then, WiNNiNg here


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 3, 2014)

jc456 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Yes, you are both wrong and crazy, JustCrazy, as your fact-free posts clearly demonstrate.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 3, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


 full of facts, and nothing nada zip from your side.  Still no proof.  You can't even challenge our facts.  That's how little of nothing you have.  NOTHING!!!


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 3, 2014)

jc456 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Nope, wrong again. You are clearly full of shit, JustCrazy.









jc456 said:


> and nothing nada zip from your side.  Still no proof.  You can't even challenge our facts.  That's how little of nothing you have.  NOTHING!!!



You HAVE NO FACTS, you poor delusional retard, just myths, pseudo-science, and lies.

*The American Geophysical Union's Position Statement on Climate Change

Human‐Induced Climate Change Requires Urgent Action

Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.

Human activities are changing Earths climate. At the global level, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat‐trapping greenhouse gases have increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase. Human‐caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed global average surface warming of roughly 0.8°C (1.5°F) over the past 140 years. Because natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate system for millennia.

Extensive, independent observations confirm the reality of global warming. These observations show large‐scale increases in air and sea temperatures, sea level, and atmospheric water vapor; they document decreases in the extent of mountain glaciers, snow cover, permafrost, and Arctic sea ice. These changes are broadly consistent with long‐ understood physics and predictions of how the climate system is expected to respond to human‐caused increases in greenhouse gases. The changes are inconsistent with explanations of climate change that rely on known natural influences.

Climate models predict that global temperatures will continue to rise, with the amount of warming primarily determined by the level of emissions. Higher emissions of greenhouse gases will lead to larger warming, and greater risks to society and ecosystems. Some additional warming is unavoidable due to past emissions.

Climate change is not expected to be uniform over space or time. Deforestation, urbanization, and particulate pollution can have complex geographical, seasonal, and longer‐term effects on temperature, precipitation, and cloud properties. In addition, human‐induced climate change may alter atmospheric circulation, dislocating historical patterns of natural variability and storminess.

In the current climate, weather experienced at a given location or region varies from year to year; in a changing climate, both the nature of that variability and the basic patterns of weather experienced can change, sometimes in counterintuitive ways ‐‐ some areas may experience cooling, for instance. This raises no challenge to the reality of human‐induced climate change.

Impacts harmful to society, including increased extremes of heat, precipitation, and coastal high water are currently being experienced, and are projected to increase. Other projected outcomes involve threats to public health, water availability, agricultural productivity (particularly in low‐latitude developing countries), and coastal infrastructure, though some benefits may be seen at some times and places. Biodiversity loss is expected to accelerate due to both climate change and acidification of the oceans, which is a direct result of increasing carbon dioxide levels.

While important scientific uncertainties remain as to which particular impacts will be experienced where, no uncertainties are known that could make the impacts of climate change inconsequential. Furthermore, surprise outcomes, such as the unexpectedly rapid loss of Arctic summer sea ice, may entail even more dramatic changes than anticipated.

Actions that could diminish the threats posed by climate change to society and ecosystems include substantial emissions cuts to reduce the magnitude of climate change, as well as preparing for changes that are now unavoidable. The community of scientists has responsibilities to improve overall understanding of climate change and its impacts. Improvements will come from pursuing the research needed to understand climate change, working with stakeholders to identify relevant information, and conveying understanding clearly and accurately, both to decision makers and to the general public.

Adopted by the American Geophysical Union December 2003; Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007, February 2012, August 2013.*


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 3, 2014)

JC.....time to pop up another post on the PROOF THE SKEPTICS ARE WINNING thread!!!!


Shit makes their heads explode!!


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 3, 2014)

skookerasbil said:


> JC.....time to pop up another post on the PROOF THE SKEPTICS ARE WINNING thread!!!! Shit makes their heads explode!!



More meaningless drivel from the braindead retard kookles.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 3, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > JC.....time to pop up another post on the PROOF THE SKEPTICS ARE WINNING thread!!!! Shit makes their heads explode!!
> ...


 And yet, nothing.  Still nothing.  Posting written articles with conjecture in them isn't proof of anything except someone's opinion.  What I provided was validated by your article from the other thread concerning saturation.  Herr Koch's experiment in 1901validated that adding CO2 scarcely increase temperatures. So an experiment, the one I was looking for validates my stance.  Set, Match!!!!


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 3, 2014)

jc456 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...


Really, REALLY braindead drivel and silly lies.

You quote a snippet of the article I cited and try to pretend that the part you just quoted wasn't followed by this part...

*"Nobody was interested in thinking about the matter deeply enough to notice the flaw in the argument. The scientists were looking at warming from ground level, so to speak, asking about the radiation that reaches and leaves the surface of the Earth. Like Ångström, they tended to treat the atmosphere overhead as a unit, as if it were a single sheet of glass. (Thus the “greenhouse” analogy.) But this is not how global warming actually works.

What happens to infrared radiation emitted by the Earth’s surface? As it moves up layer by layer through the atmosphere, some is stopped in each layer. To be specific: a molecule of carbon dioxide, water vapor or some other greenhouse gas absorbs a bit of energy from the radiation. The molecule may radiate the energy back out again in a random direction. Or it may transfer the energy into velocity in collisions with other air molecules, so that the layer of air where it sits gets warmer. The layer of air radiates some of the energy it has absorbed back toward the ground, and some upwards to higher layers. As you go higher, the atmosphere gets thinner and colder. Eventually the energy reaches a layer so thin that radiation can escape into space.

What happens if we add more carbon dioxide? In the layers so high and thin that much of the heat radiation from lower down slips through, adding more greenhouse gas molecules means the layer will absorb more of the rays. So the place from which most of the heat energy finally leaves the Earth will shift to higher layers. Those are colder layers, so they do not radiate heat as well. The planet as a whole is now taking in more energy than it radiates (which is in fact our current situation). As the higher levels radiate some of the excess downwards, all the lower levels down to the surface warm up. The imbalance must continue until the high levels get hot enough to radiate as much energy back out as the planet is receiving.

Any saturation at lower levels would not change this, since it is the layers from which radiation does escape that determine the planet’s heat balance. The basic logic was neatly explained by John Tyndall back in 1862: "As a dam built across a river causes a local deepening of the stream, so our atmosphere, thrown as a barrier across the terrestrial [infrared] rays, produces a local heightening of the temperature at the Earth’s surface.""*

- See more at: RealClimate A Saturated Gassy Argument


----------



## Youch (Nov 5, 2014)

Bfgrn said:


> Youch said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Numb nuts,

I stand by my posts.

He is a brilliant man, and that you denigrate him, or that anyone would, on the basis of his skin color, in this thread, elsewhere on this forum, or elsewhere in the world, is dumb. 

Brave Boy Behind a Keyboard,

I make a lot of posts on a lot of topics on a lot of forums.  But recalling the conversations in this thread is easy.  Do you have SPECIFIC issues with my positions, or is all you have in your quiver are duds?

Sowell is awesome.  Prove to me he is not.  You are an idiot.  Prove to me you are not. 

Only then can we discuss real issues.

Prove wrong my predictions of what is to come....


----------



## mamooth (Nov 5, 2014)

Youch said:


> Few on this earth revere Thomas Sowell as much as I. I've purchased and read most of his books.



So can we take it you agree with all of Sowell's whackaloon claims? Let's try this again, because it's such fun to watch you run.

Like Sowell, do you think Obama is just like Hitler?

Do you think the US is in danger of having to surrender to Iran?

Were you a big backer of starting a war in Iraq?

Do you think DDT is harmless, and that banning it killed millions?

Do you think the New Deal made the depression worse?

Do you favor the gold standard?



> Brave Boy Behind a Keyboard,



And that doesn't seem to be you, being how you keep running. Are all Sowell groupies such intellectual cowards, or is it just you?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 5, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


 where there is water vapor remember?  You need water vapor, has nothing to do with CO2.  Learn something already.  It was in your own flippin post k00k!!!!


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 5, 2014)

jc456 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


 Just Crazy, you seem to be posting out of your asshole again. CO2 warms the atmosphere, the atmosphere holds more water. Which increases the amount of heat the atmosphere absorbs.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 6, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


And yet Herr Koch proved it otherwise.  Feel free to provide some experiment that disproves Koch's experiment.

go

for

it


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 6, 2014)

jc456 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


No, 'Herr Koch' did not prove anything like that, you lying troll. Shove your bogus pseudo-science back up your butt where it belongs.

And BTW, your fraudulent OP was debunked in post #221.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 6, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


 ah.......he did!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 6, 2014)

jc456 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Only in your retarded imagination, troll. Which has no apparent connection to the real world.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 6, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


 you simply can't help yourself with your insulting habits.  You behave as a very sad individual.


----------



## jillian (Nov 6, 2014)

skookerasbil said:


> Dr Benny Peiser says public are more sceptical about climate change and global warming Nature News Daily Express
> 
> One word = *Ooooooooooooooooooops!!!!
> *
> ...




peiser is not a climatologist... but you can pretend he's an "expert"



> Peiser acknowledges that he is "not a climate scientist" and has "never claimed to be one." His interest as a social anthropologist, is in "how climate change is portrayed as a potential disaster and how we respond to that."



Benny Peiser - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

no doubt you get your weather report from your neighborhood barrista....


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 6, 2014)

jc456 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Your silly comments are off-topic nonsense. You behave as a lying troll who can't support his fallacious claims with any actual evidence.


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 7, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...





Hows the old nut sack today s0n??


Your kind took a serious rupture this week!!!! >>>> Climate change supporters suffer losses TheHill


The lying trolls were dominating.......and even more now after Tuesday!!!


The American people spoke.......nobody gives a flying fuck about the science except a handful of k00k left states. But with the HOUSE now going to hold court for the next decade ( see governors redistricting of state counties).....the greens don't have dick anymore!!!


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 7, 2014)

skookerasbil said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



I see you're still crazy enough to imagine that the real-world scientific facts about the reality of anthropogenic global warming and its consequent climate changes, have anything to do with the political world or the political manipulations of the fossil fuel industry and the Koch brothers. The political posturing of the rightwingnut stooges for the fossil fuel industry will soon confront the reality of a rapidly warming planet and rising sea levels and increasing extreme weather disasters. Reality wins.


----------



## Youch (Nov 8, 2014)

mamooth said:


> Youch said:
> 
> 
> > Few on this earth revere Thomas Sowell as much as I. I've purchased and read most of his books.
> ...



Odd, that you attempt to put words in other peoples mouth, and/or re- or mis-interpret his or my points of view.  But I'l play our game insofar as its fun for me to play word games.  In order......

Not just like.  But similar.
Not in danger, but well on its way to defeat.
Irrelevant, but no.
The banning did kill millions, this is a proven fact. Lets debate.
The New Deal DID make the depression worse.  This is a proven fact. Lets debate.
The gold standard is more stable and less prone to political motives.  To the extent that I support it is a grey area for me.

In what way is supporting Sowell in this specific thread being an intellectual coward??  I've answered every question.  Sowell has more than made his own case, for those who have bothered to understand his position. You seem to be arguing against yourself.  Why?  Small something???


----------



## Youch (Nov 8, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



I find your signature to be the most maleducated and dumbest of all the signatures on this forum.  I look forward to debating you on any of those issues in any applicable forum thread.

I apologize in advance if I'm not punctual, as I don't often post.  But rest assured I'll get back to you, as your signature is too outrageously stupid and ignorant to ignore.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Nov 8, 2014)

SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer5:33 p.m. EDT October 20, 2014

WASHINGTON — If you thought last winter was a horror show, with cold blasts from the polar vortex and a lack of California rain, here's some good news: No sequel is expected this year, federal forecasters say.

Mike Halpert of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said Thursday that the upcoming winter looks pretty average in general. He doesn't expect a lot of extreme conditions like last year's cold outbreaks when Arctic air dipped south with the polar vortex.

*"A repeat of last winter is not particularly likely,"* said Halpert, acting director of NOAA's Climate Prediction Center in College Park, Maryland.

Feds Don t expect winter to be polar vortex redux

--LOL

*November 8, 2014; 2:51 AM ET


Polar Vortex to Blast 200 Million People With Arctic Air


Arctic air associated with the polar vortex will lunge into the North Central United States early next week and will expand southward and eastward to affect about 200 million people as the week progresses.

Polar Vortex to Blast 200 Million People With Arctic Air

*


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 8, 2014)

jon_berzerk said:


> SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer5:33 p.m. EDT October 20, 2014
> 
> WASHINGTON — If you thought last winter was a horror show, with cold blasts from the polar vortex and a lack of California rain, here's some good news: No sequel is expected this year, federal forecasters say.
> 
> ...


So what, retard?

NOAA predicts that this winter probably won't feature the same multiple, repeated blasts of Arctic air carried south by a wobbly jet stream that froze the eastern parts of the country last winter (remember - "_California had its warmest April-September on record this year with an average temperature of 70.0°F, 3.3°F above average. This bested the previous record set just last year by 0.6°F. Oregon had its second warmest warm season, Washington its third warmest_" - NOAA). That doesn't mean that there will be *no* Arctic air incursions into the USA this winter, just probably not the same repeated pattern.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Nov 8, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer5:33 p.m. EDT October 20, 2014
> ...




so like you say 

it is just a guess 

--LOL

--LOL@U loser


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 9, 2014)

jon_berzerk said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...



Well actually, berserko, normal unretarded people call it a long range weather forcast, but since you're so scientifically ignorant, on top of being an imbecile, I suppose pretty much everything that scientists figure out seems like "_a guess_" to you


----------



## jon_berzerk (Nov 10, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...




they are really good at guessing incorrectly 

--LOL


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 10, 2014)

jon_berzerk said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...



You are really good at posting idiotic nonsense.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Nov 10, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...




it is not nonsense 

they got it wrong 

as usual


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 10, 2014)

jon_berzerk said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...


Yes, it is. 
No, they didn't.
Bogus denier cult myth.

In the real world....

*Global warming predictions prove accurate*
*Analysis of climate change modelling for past 15 years reveal accurate forecasts of rising global temperatures*
The Guardian
27 March 2013
*
Climate Models & Accuracy
Professor Scott A. Mandia






Figure 6.1: Global temperature trend over the past century modeled quite well
Figure 6.2 (ibid) belows shows how climate model temperature predictions compare to reconstructed temperatures. Thick lines represent model predictions with human and natural forcing (All) and thin lines represent model predictions with just natural forcing (Nat). Models do a good job of simulating past climate using just natural forcing but they can only reproduce the modern temperature record by including human emissions of greenhouse gases. The thick and thin lines begin to diverge around 1850 around the time that the Industrial Revolution ramped up. Futhermore, the models predict that the modern climate should be COOLING due to natural forcing which means that the human forcing dominates climate in the recent record.*


----------



## jon_berzerk (Nov 10, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...



nice try 

hindsight models 

--LOL


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 10, 2014)

jon_berzerk said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...


Nope, wrong again, as usual. They are talking about PREDICTIVE models, moron, that have been verified by both hindcasting and direct observation of what happened after the prediction.

Try actually reading the cited material this time.

*Global warming predictions prove accurate
Analysis of climate change modelling for past 15 years reveal accurate forecasts of rising global temperatures*


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 10, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...





1/20th of one degree.

nobody cares s0n


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 10, 2014)

oh.....and the predictive models are gay.

That's why the candidates running this last election on climate change got their clocks cleaned ( posted up thread on this )............because for 20 years, the folks have heard all the bomb throwing stunts, so many of which have fallen flat on their face.

In the real world, that's the way it works s0n.........perception is everything unless you're a global warming mental case living in the AGW bubble.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Nov 10, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...




i really have quit bothering to read man made global warming material 

posted by man made global warming nutz 

it has been proven false so many times over the years 

as well as falsified in so many instances


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 10, 2014)

And more worthless off-topic bullshit from the kookster. As usual.


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 10, 2014)

jon_berzerk said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...


No problem, nutjob. You're too stupid and brainwashed to comprehend what you read anyway.





i





jon_berzerk said:


> t has been proven false so many times over the years as well as falsified in so many instances


More braindead denier cult myths with no connection to reality.

You still refuse to actually read this....like the good little denier cult dupe that you are...

*Global warming predictions prove accurate
Analysis of climate change modelling for past 15 years reveal accurate forecasts of rising global temperatures*


----------



## jon_berzerk (Nov 10, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...




your the nut job pal


----------



## rdean (Nov 10, 2014)

Matt Drudge Quotes Global Warming Expert Who s Not Drudge Retort

_Sourcewatch.com_ reports that Dr. Benny Peiser's "is a UK social anthropologist and AGW denier *listed among the Heartland Institute 'Global warming experts' despite having no evident expertise in climate science or policy*."


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 10, 2014)

jon_berzerk said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...



Uh-huh, riiiiight, the guy who accepts the overwhelming scientific consensus on the reality and dangers of AGW/CC, and the obvious real-world evidence all around us that supports the conclusions of the scientists, he's the "_nut job_"......while you, who rejects science and the enormous amount of supporting evidence for AGW, and instead falls for the anti-science bullshit propaganda being pushed by the fossil fuel industry, and who can't even spell "you're" correctly, you actually imagine that you are not a flaming nutjob severely afflicted by the Dunning-Kruger Effect......LOLOLOLOL.....so you're as delusional as ever, eh berserko?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 10, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


 I found it very entertaining.


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 10, 2014)

jc456 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...


And, as usual, JustCrazy, totally beyond your very very limited comprehension.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 10, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


You're fun to watch on here. You have no idea about reality. You play with dolls.


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 10, 2014)

jc456 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


And yet more braindead drivel from the denier cult troll JustCrazy.


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 10, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...





If your camp is winning in such epic fashion s0n, why are you always doing a mental meltdown on this forum......calling everybody "retard", "denier cult", "delusional", "flaming nutjob", "berserk" et. al.................

Sounds like the lament of somebody who is losing.

Do you realize s0n.....there are less than a handful of people on this forum who concur with your view. There's you, Crick, Mamooth and Old Rocks. THATS IT............on an ENVIRONMENTAL FORUM MUCH LESS!!!! everybody else is a skeptic.

All the world governments reject the real world evidence s0n......or they'd be going hog-wild for renewables. They're not. Renewables continue to be fringe energy all over the world. Fossil fuels are dominating.............dominating s0n!!

Nobody cares about your science.


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 10, 2014)

skookerasbil said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...



And still more clueless idiocy from the retarded troll who imagines that scientific facts are dependent on politics.


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 10, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...





But the retarded troll provides scores of links HERE >>> More Proof the skeptics are WINNING US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum  ...............scores..............that says the scientific facts are ALL about the politics s0n!!! Unless we're talking internet banter or course!!!


----------



## jon_berzerk (Nov 10, 2014)

skookerasbil said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...




--LOL


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 10, 2014)

skookerasbil said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...


But the retarded troll's retarded links are all bogus denier cult bullshit.


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 10, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...





LOL....dude........love the sIcK levels of anger!!! Making you look like a dick is perhaps the most fun I have on this forum!!!


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 10, 2014)

skookerasbil said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...


What anger, retard? Pointing out the idiocy of your posts, and the other dingbat denier cultists' posts, is perversely enjoyable. Debunking your evil lies and BS propaganda is the whole point, of course, but laughing at your befuddled idiocy and mocking your retarded gullibility is just gravy.


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 10, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...




Here ya go s0n......from the #1 source of retarded gullibility on the forum >>  More Proof the skeptics are WINNING US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum  ........only 112,000 responses and nearing 3,500 posts!!!

How many responses did your last thread have s0n? 18 I think? Or was it 19?


----------



## SSDD (Nov 11, 2014)

skookerasbil said:


> LOL....dude........love the sIcK levels of anger!!! Making you look like a dick is perhaps the most fun I have on this forum!!!



Thunder is quite damaged emotionally and as a result has large, neon lit buttons that one can push with no effort at all....it is sort of boring though because even though they are different colors, they all produce the same result...paroxysms of angry, juvenile name calling accompanied by bold, colored, and boring cut and pastes...

It's like teasing a monkey in a cage...fun for a minute or two, but ultimately unsatisfying and even a bit self humiliating...since the monkey really has no chance....his situation leaves him very few options and that is a sad testament to those who put him there.


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 11, 2014)

SSDD said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > LOL....dude........love the sIcK levels of anger!!! Making you look like a dick is perhaps the most fun I have on this forum!!!
> ...





Dang SSDD.........the "monkey in a cage" comment made me almost spit my morning coffee on my computer monitor. Very clever and so true!!!

Dollar to a thousand stale donuts, this guy is the most miserable fuck on the whole message board.............a prolific loser in life...........a fairy social oddball who displaces his pent up anger in here because he finally found a cause to get behind and matter in the world. Al Gore makes his movie and its been all downhill from there!! The monkey is getting smacked around pretty good in here       but I do have to give him credit for showing up all the time!!!


----------



## SSDD (Nov 11, 2014)

skookerasbil said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...




Got to wonder what brought him to the state he is presently in....one great trauma or systematic abuse from an early age....or a large trauma followed by systematic abuse from an early age.  It is clear that he has self image problems...he sees himself as inferior but can't bear to have others see his internal weakness....his solution is to be loud, abusive, abrasive, and obnoxious...and as overbearing as he can.  The problem is that such behaviors are always the go to's for people who feel small and inferior...


----------



## jc456 (Nov 11, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


 nice to see you don't get it!!! as usual.


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 11, 2014)

jc456 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...



Oh, I "_get it_" just fine, which is why I'm always mocking your befuddled idiocy and retarded gullibility, you poor moronic troll.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 11, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


 And yet........no proof


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 11, 2014)

jc456 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Nope, wrong again. Lots and lots of evidence that has convinced virtually the entire world scientific community. Unfortunately there is no possible evidence that can convince brainwashed, ideologically motivated, scientifically ignorant retards like yourself.


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 11, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...





Head explodes again due to loSiNg ^^^

Winners don't use such a multitude of adjectives..........and anyway, these mental cases keep using this term "entire scientific community".

Who cares about these people except the climate obsessed?

The answer is...............nobody. Recent election sure as shit proved that once again......fuckers who ran on climate change got their fucking clocks cleaned!!! A week later...........dang............Im still laughing about it.


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 11, 2014)

skookerasbil said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Awwww, too bad, kookles. Take an aspirin. Don't fret. You've always been losing, so there's nothing to get exited about now. 






skookerasbil said:


> Winners don't use such a multitude of adjectives..........and anyway, these mental cases keep using this term "entire scientific community". Who cares about these people except the climate obsessed? The answer is...............nobody. Recent election sure as shit proved that once again......fuckers who ran on climate change got their fucking clocks cleaned!!!


More insane twaddle from a retard who imagines that the science supporting AGW can be refuted by politics.


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 11, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...





OK  Only matters if the science is mattering!!!


[URL='http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/8abb9baf6-4.jpg.html']
	
[/URL]


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 11, 2014)

skookerasbil said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...



More drivel from the idiot/troll who called Benny Peiser a " _leading climate scientist_" in his retarded OP when, in fact, Peiser is a social anthropologist specializing in sports medicine, and has no education or experience in any branch of the climate sciences. Typical denier desperation.


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 12, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...




Yep...........ahhhhhhh ( takes toke of ciggy in classic Denis Leary fashion  ). Like Ive said.........the whole credentialing ruse from the AGW k00ks hasnt mattered in the real world!!!

Im displaying my level of desperation every time I post up that Obama graph up there ^^^ !!!!!!!


----------



## jc456 (Nov 12, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


 That's exactly right.  Because to date none has been provided.  See your issue is you are trying to convince folks who think for themselves and research.  We're not political and we have no agenda like you. And pulling wool over our eyes just doesn't work like it did for you. And for you to continue to use insults with adjectives that are child like, well only demonstrates where the integrity is at.  right here with me an all of the other pro climate and earthers who actually understand your agenda.  But we have the globe on our side, you don't.  But you keep telling yourself that you are.  See we all know where the evidence really is, and it is with mother earth.

You continue using your childish adjectives and showing your LoSiNg techniques.  We laugh all day!!!!

Cheers!


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 12, 2014)

jc456 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Your denier lies and BS got thoroughly debunked and I know that having your precious myths destroyed makes you even crazier than usual but don't get your panties in such a twist, JustCrazy. We all know you're too retarded to recognize actual scientific evidence if it bit you.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 12, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


 Well something bit me, but I can tell you it wasn't climate science! 

So again, how much CO2 is above me in Chicago and how much is above the North Pole?  Is it equal?


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 12, 2014)

jc456 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Probably the 'nut-bug' then. You're showing all of the symptoms. You're obviously way too retarded to understand climate science. Even third grade science is obviously a real challenge for you.






jc456 said:


> So again, how much CO2 is above me in Chicago and how much is above the North Pole?  Is it equal?


No.

*Global Patterns of Carbon Dioxide*
*NASA*
*September 27, 2013
AIRS (the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder on NASA’s Aqua satellite) has shown that carbon dioxide is not evenly distributed over the globe; it is patchy with high concentrations in some places and lower concentrations in others. The gas’s transport and distribution through the atmosphere is controlled by the jet stream, by large weather systems, and by other large-scale atmospheric circulations. The findings from AIRS have raised new questions about how carbon dioxide is transported from one place to another—both horizontally and vertically—through the atmosphere. To address these questions and others, NASA is preparing to launch the Orbiting Carbon Observatory in 2014. It will be the first satellite dedicated to monitoring carbon dioxide, and it will do so with greater precision and detail than current instruments.*


----------



## jc456 (Nov 12, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


coming from someone like you, I'm much smarter.  At least I know that adding a 120 PPM of CO2 to the atmosphere does not increase temperatures.  Can you say that?


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 12, 2014)

jc456 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


No, I certainly can not say that....of course, that is because I'm not a brainwashed retard like you.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 12, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


 then sir you do not know science!!!!


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 12, 2014)

jc456 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


LOLOLOLOL.....your insanity is hilarious......the world scientific community almost unanimously confirms the reality of AGW, but according to ol' JustCrazy, they "_do not know science_". LOLOLOL. But this sad victim of the Dunning-Kruger Effect imagines that _he_ "_knows science_" better than all of the actual scientists. LOLOLOL. Denier cult retards are a hoot!


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 12, 2014)

The Green Agenda


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 12, 2014)

*31,478.......oh......but they are all fake scientists!!*


31 478 scientists agree climate change is a hoax Make Wealth History


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 12, 2014)

jc456 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Nope, wrong again. Lots and lots of evidence that has convinced virtually the entire world scientific community. Unfortunately there is no possible evidence that can convince brainwashed, ideologically motivated, scientifically ignorant retards like yourself.
> ...



More deranged drivel from one of the forum's resident retards. As I just said to JustCrazy..."*Unfortunately there is no possible evidence that can convince brainwashed, ideologically motivated, scientifically ignorant retards like yourself.*"


----------



## jc456 (Nov 13, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


 And like I have stated hundreds of times, you have no evidence.  You have zero..  Out of thousands of links you can't provide one!! And I'm crazy.   you must be looking in the mirror when  you type!!!!


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 13, 2014)

Even the great climate expert, Dr Judith Curry, long referenced in this forum by the AGW community ( many many times ) is saying there is far too much still to be learned about the climate!!!

But don't take my word for it.......... read what she says in a recent interview >>>

The Kardashians and Climate Change Interview with Judith Curry


But I guess now she is a fake scientist to the AGW religion because she doesn't walk in lockstep with the established narrative of the hoaxsters.

And really............how fucking gay is that?


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 13, 2014)

jc456 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Insanely delusional nonsense and blatant denial of reality. As usual from ol' JustCrazy.


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 14, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...





That's right s0n........and Dr Judith Curry is also a deranged retard delusional denier asshole fuck!!!


----------



## jc456 (Nov 18, 2014)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...


 Insanely missing experiment!!!!! ah....haahahahahaha, you can't win this doofus, you have no evidence.  You'd be thrown out of court for lack of  E v i d e n c e....


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 19, 2014)

Hey JC....ever notice how ouor threads dominate this forum in terms of "views" and "replies". Thats some shit, huh??!!! An ENVIRONMENT forum where the environmentalists get their clocks cleaned daily ( not to them, of course, but to all non-AGW peeps )


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 19, 2014)

Oh......Dr Judith Curry s0ns!!!!!


Making the k00ks look like dicks!!


----------

