# Scientist discovers errors in global warming model



## Misty (Oct 9, 2015)

"A former climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, with six degrees in applied mathematics, Dr Evans has unpacked the architecture of the basic climate model which underpins all climate science.

*He has found that, while the underlying physics of the model is correct, it had been applied incorrectly.

He has fixed two errors and the new corrected model finds the climate’s sensitivity to carbon dioxide (CO2) is much lower than was thought.

It turns out the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has over-estimated future global warming by as much as 10 times, he says.

“Yes, CO2 has an effect, but it’s about a fifth or tenth of what the IPCC says it is. CO2 is not driving the climate; it caused less than 20 per cent of the global warming in the last few decades”.*

CO2 is not causing global warming. 



Read more: Australian scientist discovers ERRORS in Global Warming models that COMPLETELY undermine climate theory!!! » The Right Scoop -


----------



## gtopa1 (Oct 9, 2015)

The cultists will never give up their dogma!!

Greg


----------



## Rustic (Oct 9, 2015)

Algore is full of sh!t...

Drill baby drill...


----------



## Porker (Oct 9, 2015)

They scientifically (the algoreists) made that global warming projection using Volkswagen's system design for their air pollution free automobiles.


----------



## mamooth (Oct 9, 2015)

There have already been two threads in the Environment folder where this got laughed at. But I get it, when conservatives get their marching orders, they all rush to obey.

Evans is a clown who botched the math and physics. However, you won't be able to convince a denier of that, being their faith in their conspiracy theory is unshakable. According to them, the last 3 centuries of math and physics are all wrong, overturned by an electrical engineer political fanatic. Yeah, that's probably it.

If Evans isn't a clown, he merely needs to use his theory to make climate predictions, and show those predictions come true. Mainstream climate science has been getting everything right for decades, which is why it has such credibility. Of course, like every other denier, Evans won't have the guts to put his credibility on the line by making predictions, or to submit his work to peer review.


----------



## blastoff (Oct 9, 2015)

Settle down everyone.  The head of the Sierra Club will be along shortly to refute the Aussie's claims, just as soon as he stops bleeding from his meeting with Ted Cruz the other day.


----------



## Dante (Oct 9, 2015)

So a scientist -- discovers this?

So the scientific community has NOT been lying if this news is taken to be credible. It only means science was incorrect and gets corrected as time goes on? Wow!  

Science at work?  What will the right wing denier nuts do now, embrace science and scientists? Nah, they'll talk about Al Gore and other shit


----------



## saveliberty (Oct 9, 2015)

What?  A peer reviewed it and found errors?  Faithers are a funny group.


----------



## Rozman (Oct 9, 2015)

Al Gore is going to have to find another scam to make money.


----------



## Dante (Oct 9, 2015)

Misty said:


> "A former climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, with six degrees in applied mathematics, Dr Evans has unpacked the architecture of the basic climate model which underpins all climate science.
> 
> *He has found...*
> 
> ...



Should say Read more carefully: since at least 2011 this Dr Evans has been going on, and on, and, on... David Evans' Understanding of the Climate Goes Cold

The Australian NEWS article is posted by a nut job calling himself Sooper Mexican or some such nonsense  

very credible, eh?


----------



## Dante (Oct 9, 2015)

saveliberty said:


> What?  A peer reviewed it and found errors?  Faithers are a funny group.


_He has been summarising his results in a series of blog posts on his wife Jo Nova’s blog for climate sceptics.

He is about half way through his series, with blog post 8, “Applying the Stefan-Boltzmann Law to Earth”, published on Friday.

When it is completed his work will be published as two scientific papers. Both papers are undergoing peer review._​
No CookiesPerth Now


----------



## Dante (Oct 9, 2015)

*Favourite climate myths by David Evans*
Below are many of the climate myths used by David Evans plus how often each myth has been used.

Climate misinformer: David Evans

Climate myths by Evans *What the Science Says*

Usage at the time of article  = Numbers in black:

"There's no tropospheric hot spot" We see a clear "short-term hot spot" - there's various evidence for a "long-term hot spot". 4

"Climate sensitivity is low" Net positive feedback is confirmed by many different lines of evidence. 1

"Temp record is unreliable" The warming trend is the same in rural and urban areas, measured by thermometers and satellites. 1

"It's microsite influences" Microsite influences on temperature changes are minimal; good and bad sites show the same trend. 1

"Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong"
Jim Hansen had several possible scenarios; his mid-level scenario B was right.

1

"Ice age predicted in the 70s" The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming. 1

"It warmed before 1940 when CO2 was low" Early 20th century warming is due to several causes, including rising CO2. 1

"Models are unreliable" Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean. 1

"Climate's changed before" Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing. 1

"It's cooling" The last decade 2000-2009 was the hottest on record. 1

"We're coming out of the Little Ice Age"
Scientists have determined that the factors which caused the Little Ice Age cooling are not currently causing global warming

1

"It's a 1500 year cycle" Ancient natural cycles are irrelevant for attributing recent global warming to humans. 1

"There's no empirical evidence" There are multiple lines of direct observations that humans are causing global warming. 1

"It cooled mid-century" Mid-century cooling involved aerosols and is irrelevant for recent global warming. 1

"CO2 lags temperature" CO2 didn't initiate warming from past ice ages but it did amplify the warming.  1

"It's cosmic rays" Cosmic rays show no trend over the last 30 years & have had little impact on recent global warming. 1​


----------



## Porker (Oct 9, 2015)

Actually these lies in their formulas have ALREADY been discovered. They made up their shit as they went along.


----------



## BlindBoo (Oct 9, 2015)

Yawn, but then there is this.....

http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/missing-carbon/


----------



## Misty (Oct 10, 2015)

mamooth said:


> There have already been two threads in the Environment folder where this got laughed at. But I get it, when conservatives get their marching orders, they all rush to obey.
> 
> Evans is a clown who botched the math and physics. However, you won't be able to convince a denier of that, being their faith in their conspiracy theory is unshakable. According to them, the last 3 centuries of math and physics are all wrong, overturned by an electrical engineer political fanatic. Yeah, that's probably it.
> 
> If Evans isn't a clown, he merely needs to use his theory to make climate predictions, and show those predictions come true. Mainstream climate science has been getting everything right for decades, which is why it has such credibility. Of course, like every other denier, Evans won't have the guts to put his credibility on the line by making predictions, or to submit his work to peer review.


He has 6 math degrees. It was the IPCC that is either purposely making shit up or is too ignorant to use their magical weather predicting machine properly.


----------



## Misty (Oct 10, 2015)

BlindBoo said:


> Yawn, but then there is this.....
> 
> http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/missing-carbon/


CO2 feeds plants. I learned that in 4th grade.


----------



## Misty (Oct 10, 2015)

Dante said:


> Misty said:
> 
> 
> > "A former climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, with six degrees in applied mathematics, Dr Evans has unpacked the architecture of the basic climate model which underpins all climate science.
> ...


Of course you'll. try to discredit him. 

Any scientist that tried to prove global warming is a lie gets ignored or squelched. 

The emperor has no clothes but you like looking at him naked. 

Global warming is a lie. A calculated lie.


----------



## Misty (Oct 10, 2015)

Dante said:


> So a scientist -- discovers this?
> 
> So the scientific community has NOT been lying if this news is taken to be credible. It only means science was incorrect and gets corrected as time goes on? Wow!
> 
> Science at work?  What will the right wing denier nuts do now, embrace science and scientists? Nah, they'll talk about Al Gore and other shit


A correction which blows the global warming myth to hell


----------



## kaz (Oct 10, 2015)

Misty said:


> "A former climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, with six degrees in applied mathematics, Dr Evans has unpacked the architecture of the basic climate model which underpins all climate science.
> 
> *He has found that, while the underlying physics of the model is correct, it had been applied incorrectly.
> 
> ...



Sorry, this is a non-starter.  You violated the inherent truth of liberalism


----------



## Misty (Oct 10, 2015)

kaz said:


> Misty said:
> 
> 
> > "A former climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, with six degrees in applied mathematics, Dr Evans has unpacked the architecture of the basic climate model which underpins all climate science.
> ...


Lol they need to be shown the light.


----------



## my2¢ (Oct 10, 2015)

He's predicting temperatures to start cooling down in 2017 and we'll have a mini-ice age by 2030.  If we see  temperatures stagnate until 2017 as he says then others will be forced to sit up and listen.  Otherwise, his credibility is out the window.


----------



## Dante (Oct 10, 2015)

Misty said:


> Of course you'll. try to discredit him.
> 
> Any scientist that tried to prove global warming is a lie gets ignored or squelched.
> 
> ...


Why and how would Dante be able to discredit a scientist and his supposed findings?

Weirdo people who get caught up in conspiracies theories usually assume they and others have much more power than they really do.

It is the scientific community that discredits this one lone kook. Dante is only sharing widely available information. It is you Misty that is admiring the Emperor Dr Evans with his supposed new clothes


----------



## Dante (Oct 10, 2015)

Misty said:


> He has 6 math degrees.



How many weather science and climate science degrees does he have?  

You remind me of people who think because Ben Carson operated on the brains of babies he's a qualified expert on anything he opens his mouth about


----------



## Dante (Oct 10, 2015)

Misty said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Yawn, but then there is this.....
> ...


Wow ! Misty is qualified to be an anti-climate science expert


----------



## Dante (Oct 10, 2015)

Misty said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > So a scientist -- discovers this?
> ...


Myth?

I bet you think the whole world believed the world was flat until Columbus  -- probably learned that in grade school where you became a climate scientist


----------



## Dante (Oct 10, 2015)

kaz said:


> Misty said:
> 
> 
> > "A former climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, with six degrees in applied mathematics, Dr Evans has unpacked the architecture of the basic climate model which underpins all climate science.
> ...


evidence your objection to the climate science  is one of ideology and not science and truth


----------



## Misty (Oct 10, 2015)

Dante said:


> Misty said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...


I'm not a climate scientists. I'm a skeptic. And I can see that our country is using climate change to take away freedoms and to sell green energy.


----------



## Misty (Oct 10, 2015)

Dante said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Misty said:
> ...


Just because it's science does not ever mean it's truth.


----------



## Misty (Oct 10, 2015)

Dante said:


> Misty said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...


I'm qualified to know that there are many scientist that do not follow the global warming myth and they are ignored. Why be so afraid of differing opinions on climate change?  Why not listen to all sides to find the truth?


----------



## Misty (Oct 10, 2015)

my2¢ said:


> He's predicting temperatures to start cooling down in 2017 and we'll have a mini-ice age by 2030.  If we see  temperatures stagnate until 2017 as he says then others will be forced to sit up and listen.  Otherwise, his credibility is out the window.


Temperatures have not gotten warmer is 17 years. That's proof that the climate is not getting warmer. It's staying the same.


----------



## kaz (Oct 10, 2015)

Dante said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Misty said:
> ...



how is that, holmes?


----------



## kaz (Oct 10, 2015)

Misty said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



I'm not sure what that means, but global warming conclusions are pseudo science


----------



## Dante (Oct 10, 2015)

Misty said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Misty said:
> ...


Which only proves you're a conspiracist and a skeptic.  Not very healthy mentally. When evidence is overwhelming and there is a consensus, a skeptic becomes at best a fool


----------



## Dante (Oct 10, 2015)

Misty said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Misty said:
> ...


Many scientists who do not agree with the fact that the globe is warming?   Many?

There are _some very few_ who differ on the reasons for the warming, but the evidence is overwhelming. Now, climate science is a specialty field -- how many climate scientists do you follow?


----------



## Dante (Oct 10, 2015)

Misty said:


> Temperatures have not gotten warmer is 17 years. That's proof that the climate is not getting warmer. It's staying the same.


Ok -- you've gone Rubber Room  . Are you talking about local temperatures or the temperature of the planet? 

I believe you disagree with NASA. That makes you a bit nutty. Try and refute one fact on NASA's web site   NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming


----------



## Dante (Oct 10, 2015)

kaz said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


When people are talking about climate science and you riff off into ideology ... 

please, go shit in a hat and call it ice-cream


----------



## Dante (Oct 10, 2015)

kaz said:


> Misty said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...


try refuting NASA  NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming


----------



## gtopa1 (Oct 10, 2015)

Dante said:


> Misty said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



Nonsense. You "end of worlders" are a bloody cult. Even bloody burping cows are destroying Gaia!! The earth may well be warming a little since the 1700s.......but even that is being exaggerated with corrections to data. YOU KNOW THIS IS HAPPENING!!



> I have attached a graph of average annual temperature for the Southeast that compares the new Climate Division (black line) data with the older version (grey line). What we see is that the early part of the record has been adjusted downward (cooler) by over half a degree F! The adjustments are greatest from the 1930's through the 1950's, during what were known to be very hot decades in the Southeast and other regions.



Does NOAA "adjust" Historical Climate Data? - Florida Climate Center

Therefore you are a liar and a fraud!!

Greg


----------



## gtopa1 (Oct 10, 2015)

Dante said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Misty said:
> ...



Hansen has been an alarmist for years!! He has been busy adjusting data to fit his theory......the epitome of fraud!!





Spectacularly Poor Climate Science At NASA

Frankly it looks like crap to me!!

Greg


----------



## gtopa1 (Oct 10, 2015)

Dante said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



Seems you have coprophilic tendencies!!

Greg


----------



## gtopa1 (Oct 10, 2015)

Dante said:


> Misty said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



You are not correct. Again one needs to look at from when..the last twenty years for example. Let me say again...AGW MAY be occurring and there may be a mild impact...but end of the worlders will be needing to get back to nutto churches for a new theory!! The fraud is hopefully nearly up....at least scientifically. Politically...there is a lot of money in the old scum suckers yet!!

Greg


----------



## gtopa1 (Oct 10, 2015)

Dante said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Misty said:
> ...



Something current!!

More Smoking Guns Of Fraud At NASA

Frankly I don't take you lot seriously any more and consider you parasites on the Government funding teat!!

Greg


----------



## Misty (Oct 10, 2015)

gtopa1 said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


"The people generating these graphs are fraudsters, not scientists. It is sad a few clueless skeptics still pretend that the NASA/NOAA temperature records are somehow legitimate."

Yep.


----------



## Misty (Oct 10, 2015)

Remember the hole in the ozone?

"*"A further scientific goal [of the mission] is the examination of the validity of the so-called atmosphere models. Until now computer simulation models were used for the prediction of certain changes in the atmosphere, as for instance the ozone hole or greenhouse effect, as the only expression of these phenomena. The high quotient of error (1 to 2 errors in 1,000 program steps with a total of 1 million steps) places our "knowledge" of the protective layer of the Earth in question. Crista delivers for the first time scientifically grounded information."

"They discovered thatchanges in the ozone layer were directly caused by the horizontal and vertical movement of air masses (that is, wind dynamics). A close analysis of the data also demonstrated thatchemistry played no role in the thickness of the ozone layer over these stations.Theauthors discuss the implications of their work in detail:"
*
New Scientific Evidence Proves Ozone Depletion Theory False

We had to give up using aerosol sprays but guess what that wasn't what caused it. Nature caused it.


----------



## Kosh (Oct 10, 2015)

Well AGW is nothing more than a religious cult at this point..

This is what they believe:


----------



## Misty (Oct 10, 2015)

Kosh said:


> Well AGW is nothing more than a religious cult at this point..
> 
> This is what they believe:


Yes a very dangerous freedom robbing religion


----------



## easyt65 (Oct 10, 2015)

ERRORS?  SAY IT AIN'T SO!  LOL
Try 'doctored' numbers, fake data, lies...


----------



## Misty (Oct 10, 2015)

easyt65 said:


> ERRORS?  SAY IT AIN'T SO!  LOL
> Try 'doctored' numbers, fake data, lies...


They already knew computer models were not accurate but they figured we wouldn't remember how the screwed up the ozone hole. But I do remember.


----------



## Misty (Oct 10, 2015)

mamooth said:


> There have already been two threads in the Environment folder where this got laughed at. But I get it, when conservatives get their marching orders, they all rush to obey.
> 
> Evans is a clown who botched the math and physics. However, you won't be able to convince a denier of that, being their faith in their conspiracy theory is unshakable. According to them, the last 3 centuries of math and physics are all wrong, overturned by an electrical engineer political fanatic. Yeah, that's probably it.
> 
> If Evans isn't a clown, he merely needs to use his theory to make climate predictions, and show those predictions come true. Mainstream climate science has been getting everything right for decades, which is why it has such credibility. Of course, like every other denier, Evans won't have the guts to put his credibility on the line by making predictions, or to submit his work to peer review.


What happened to the hole in the ozone?  No more aerosol yet the hole comes and goes gets bigger gets smaller. 

Scientist were sure it was aerosol but they were wrong. They used the same computer models as they do for GW. 

Now they admit it's caused by nature.


----------



## mamooth (Oct 10, 2015)

Misty said:


> What happened to the hole in the ozone?  No more aerosol yet the hole comes and goes gets bigger gets smaller.



The ozone hole has been behaving exactly as scientists predicted. CFC levels are slowly dropping, but are still saturated -- that is, high enough to cause maximum ozone destruction each year -- and will be until around 2025, so the hole will remain somewhat steady at current high levels until then.

So thanks for the example of how the atmospheric scientists were proven to be absolutely correct yet another time, and how you get fooled by every conspiracy crank who comes along. And now you want to replay your ozone faceplant with global warming. A conspiracy crank on a conspiracy crank website published a new crank conspiracy theory, it agreed with your political cult's ideology, so your political cult ordered all of the acolytes to believe, no matter how crazy it makes them look.

Good luck with that. And with your howler monkey buds posting all their fudged and faked data and even crazier conspiracy theories. Yeah, that will really show the world. That's right, the scientists are looking at this board right now, and saying "Oh no! The jig is up! They're on to us." Really they are. Just believe hard enough.

Occam's Razor. The simplest theory that explains all the observed data is most likely correct. What's simpler?

1. A vastsecretglobalsocialistplot involving millions of people exists, with all those millions keeping the secret.

2. Your political cult stinks at science.


----------



## Davros (Oct 10, 2015)

Dante said:


> Misty said:
> 
> 
> > Of course you'll. try to discredit him.
> ...


OMFG 3rd person!


----------



## Dante (Oct 10, 2015)

So a guy with degrees in math goes on his wife's blog, and he's your credible climate scientist, yet most every single climate scientist in the world agree with the globe has warmed and man has something to do with it?

Okay -- and you and your blogger know more about the science than NASA does NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming


----------



## Rustic (Oct 10, 2015)

Dante said:


> So a scientist -- discovers this?
> 
> So the scientific community has NOT been lying if this news is taken to be credible. It only means science was incorrect and gets corrected as time goes on? Wow!
> 
> Science at work?  What will the right wing denier nuts do now, embrace science and scientists? Nah, they'll talk about Al Gore and other shit


They make it up as they go... One guess is as good as the next.

Florida was supposed to be under water by now... According to the foremost climate scientist, algore

Hashtag pseudoscience


----------



## westwall (Oct 10, 2015)

Dante said:


> Misty said:
> 
> 
> > Of course you'll. try to discredit him.
> ...









Showing yet again that dainty and the majority of progressive don't and can't understand the scientific method.  It is the DUTY of every scientist to try and disprove the theories of other scientists.  Only political clowns, charlatans, and piss poor scientists EVER make the claim that there is no point in arguing over some scientific theory.  The warmists claim the science is settled because they know that when questioned they collapse into a quivering pile of goo.  

A scientist, a true scientist revels in the give and take of a point well argued.  Only cowards and those who lie, have a desire, and a need, to deny discussion.


----------



## westwall (Oct 10, 2015)

Dante said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Misty said:
> ...








You're the one with the anti science philosophy.  You wish to absolutely squelch discussion of the subject.  That is as anti science as you can get.


----------



## Dante (Oct 10, 2015)

Rustic said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > So a scientist -- discovers this?
> ...


really? Al Gore predicted that? Hmm... under what circumstances and in what context?

could it have anything to do with scientists and others being asked what they could see happening in 15 to 20 years if nothing changes...As global temperatures rise," when they speculated that warming may cause the massive West Antarctic Ice Sheet to slip more rapidly?

what about theories that
if ice in the polar regions were to  melt, the seas will rise dramatically and the results will be calamitous…If this worst-case scenario should occur, in the coming centuries major cities could be abandoned scientists speculated what it could all mean?

None of these seem like scientists as end of the world yahoos. Sounds more like yahoos like you were first frightened by headlines while you totally ignored the conversation


----------



## westwall (Oct 10, 2015)

Dante said:


> So a guy with degrees in math goes on his wife's blog, and he's your credible climate scientist, yet most every single climate scientist in the world agree with the globe has warmed and man has something to do with it?
> 
> Okay -- and you and your blogger know more about the science than NASA does NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming








Actually you're the clowns who rely on studies that are pal reviewed...well, how about wife reviewed!  The ultimate in scientific fraud and you guys are the master practitioners!


“They were flying at 1,500 feet with the purpose of looking for bowhead whales, which are much larger and easier to spot.”

*Ramey also says he sees a conflict of interest for Monnett’s wife to be part of the internal peer review*, and questioned the awarding of a contract to Derocher, who also participated in the peer review.

“That’s not impartial,” Ramey said.   “It’s really important that peer review be truly independent.   If they can’t be, then everyone has to state their conflict right up front.”

Global Warming Link to Drowned Polar Bears Melts Under Searing Fed Probe


----------



## Dante (Oct 10, 2015)

westwall said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Misty said:
> ...


Nah, your math blogger isn't arguing over a theory, he is arguing against the scientific consensus on climate change and global warming

Scientists in a particular field do try and disprove the theories of other scientists and their own theories. You keep relying on the claims of non climate scientists. NASA agrees the science on warming is settled. Now you may disagree with how to deal with it or even with how the specific causes contribute... but ...

... only a lunatic will try and insist the globe has not warmed without offering up credible peer-reviewed, scientific proof refuting the science NASA is relying upon NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming


----------



## Dante (Oct 10, 2015)

westwall said:


> You're the one with the anti science philosophy.  You wish to absolutely squelch discussion of the subject.  That is as anti science as you can get.


Now you sound exactly like CODE PINK



Dante cannot squelch scientific discussion, He can only post what science has agreed upon, and that is that the field of climate science is where to loo for global warming data and theories. There exists within tthe WORLDWIDE scientific community, a consensus on global warming

your blogger is worse than an outlier, he is demented


----------



## The Rabbi (Oct 10, 2015)

But the science is settled!


----------



## westwall (Oct 10, 2015)

Dante said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...








As well he should.  "Consensus" is a word of politics and not science.  Anybody arguing for global warming based on consensus is resorting to "Appeals to Authority" and we ALL know how worthless that sort of logic fail is now don't we....


----------



## Dante (Oct 10, 2015)

westwall said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > So a guy with degrees in math goes on his wife's blog, and he's your credible climate scientist, yet most every single climate scientist in the world agree with the globe has warmed and man has something to do with it?
> ...


You guys? A master practitioner?  I guess because you regurgitate what you imagine is science, you think of yourself as some SORT of a scientist. 

Dante has made no such claims by way of insinuation or otherwise. Dante has consistently said he follows what NASA and the scientists in the field of climate science have to say on the subject. So EXCUSE ME for listening to experts in science over bloggers


----------



## westwall (Oct 10, 2015)

Dante said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > You're the one with the anti science philosophy.  You wish to absolutely squelch discussion of the subject.  That is as anti science as you can get.
> ...









Tell us about the scientific method dainty.  Use your words or use those of wiki, I don't care.  But after you have posted up the scientific method please show us anywhere where it says that first off science is ever settled, and secondly how scientific discussion is to be denied.

I'll wait.


----------



## westwall (Oct 10, 2015)

Dante said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...








Unlike you who refer to yourself in the third person because of your lack of intellect and profound insecurity, I actually am a scientist, and have been, for longer than you have no doubt been alive.


----------



## Dante (Oct 10, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> But the science is settled!


on the point that the globe has warmed? Yes. As with all science new evidence could alter, upend, or even strengthen the point.  NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming

But if you want to claim NASA and most every single expert in the field of climate science is wrong...

please don't whine or complain when you are called a fool


----------



## Dante (Oct 10, 2015)

please, allow Dante to appeal to an authority ...


MIT's Kerry Emanuel on What We Know About Climate Change | MIT Conversation on Climate Change

*MIT Climate Change Blog*
*MIT's Kerry Emanuel on What We Know About Climate Change*

February 15, 2015
The vast majority of scientists agree that human activity has significantly increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere--most dramatically since the 1970s. Yet global warming skeptics and ill-informed elected officials continue to dismiss this broad scientific consensus.   In a new edition of his authoritative book, MIT atmospheric scientist Kerry Emanuel and member of MIT's Climate Change Conversation Committee, outlines the basic science of global warming and how the current consensus has emerged.

- See more at: MIT's Kerry Emanuel on What We Know About Climate Change | MIT Conversation on Climate Change


----------



## Dante (Oct 10, 2015)

westwall said:


> Unlike you who refer to yourself in the third person because of your lack of intellect and profound insecurity, I actually am a scientist, and have been, for longer than you have no doubt been alive.


Bob Dole?

and I once knew somebody who had been a scientist in the US Space Program...

...back in the 1960s. They would no more claim to be a space expert 50 - 60  years later than you should claim to be some sort of expert in whatever scientific field you would claim.

You're NOT a climate scientist, so it is you who are appealing to a false authority


----------



## Dante (Oct 10, 2015)

The Rabbi said:


> But the science is settled!


Drive by Jew?  The joke is directed at you using the screen name Rabbi


good gawd, ...


----------



## westwall (Oct 10, 2015)

Dante said:


> please, allow Dante to appeal to an authority ...
> 
> 
> MIT's Kerry Emanuel on What We Know About Climate Change | MIT Conversation on Climate Change
> ...











Yeah?  So?  They are logic fails that are relied on by people incapable of defending their position through lack of facts.
Congrats, you're a moron.

"An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:


Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
Person A makes claim C about subject S.
Therefore, C is true.
Fallacy: Appeal to Authority


----------



## westwall (Oct 10, 2015)

Dante said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Unlike you who refer to yourself in the third person because of your lack of intellect and profound insecurity, I actually am a scientist, and have been, for longer than you have no doubt been alive.
> ...









I am a scientist and have been one for over 40 years.  I am not relying on authority to defend my position.  I am using the SCIENTIFIC METHOD to do so.  You should look it up.  I realize that the SM destroys your appeals to authority, and your scientific consensus bullshit, but the scientific method is what sets scientists apart from religious evangelists.


----------



## westwall (Oct 10, 2015)

Dante said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > But the science is settled!
> ...








I guess you haven't kept up with the current science.  Here is what the the IPCC has to say about the "pause" (though they call it the hiatus) so even YOUR source for all that you hold dear says the pause is real and they can't explain it other than normal variability!  Dude, you're now just making yourself look really fucking stupid.

*"Surface Warming “Pause”*
After a period of rapid warming during the 1990s, global mean surface temperatures have not warmed as rapidly over the past decade. The AR5 notes there are “differences between simulated and observed trends over periods as short as 10-15 years (e.g., 1998-2012)”. It concludes that the recent reduction in surface warming is probably due to a redistribution of heat in the ocean, volcanic eruptions, and the recent minimum in the 11-year solar cycle.  Most importantly, the report specifically points out that these trends should not undermine our confidence in the “big picture” of our understanding of climate change: “trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends.”

In addition, there is new research proposing explanations for the recent trends that did not make the deadline to be included in the AR5. One paper suggests that some of this “lost” heat is actually in the deep ocean, while another notes that the warming “pause” is actually explained by the unusual number of La Niña (sea surface cooling events) in the Pacific Ocean. The second paper by Yu Kosaka and Shang-Ping Xie states that the “current hiatus is part of natural climate variability, tied specifically to a La-Niña-like decadal cooling. Although similar decadal hiatus events may occur in the future, the multi-decadal warming trend is very likely to continue.”

IPCC AR5 Working Group I Highlights | Center for Climate and Energy Solutions


----------



## Dante (Oct 10, 2015)

westwall said:


> Yeah?  So?  They are logic fails that are relied on by people incapable of defending their position through lack of facts.
> Congrats, you're a moron.
> 
> "An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:
> ...


There is no appeal. Reporting what the climate science scientists say is a fallacy to you?


----------



## whitehall (Oct 10, 2015)

Government funded university research often brings out the greed rather than the truth. A hundred years ago a government/private industry sponsored Harvard research grant found that high incidents of cancer in factory workers exposed to radioactive material had nothing to do with painting radium dials on WW1 military equipment. In other words you can bet your ass(ets) that a university (and private laboratory) will come to whatever conclusion the grant pays them to find. Professors might even authorize their students to commit assault on people who disagree with the man-made global warming theory as long as they can still trade in that old Lexus for a new model.


----------



## Dante (Oct 10, 2015)

westwall said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



westwall claims to be an authority on science -- he's a scientist -- westwall makes claims that other scientists with no training in climate science have more authority when speaking on climate science than climate scientists do  -- this is true because after all westwall is a scientist

Therefore, C is true.
Fallacy: Appeal to Authority


----------



## Dante (Oct 10, 2015)

whitehall said:


> Government funded university research *often* brings out the greed rather than the truth.


Often? How often? What has that to do with NASA and other scientific organizations?


----------



## Dante (Oct 10, 2015)

whitehall said:


> Government funded university research often brings out the greed rather than the truth. A hundred years ago a government/private industry sponsored Harvard research grant found that high incidents of cancer in factory workers exposed to radioactive material had nothing to do with painting radium dials on WW1 military equipment. In other words you can bet your ass(ets) that a university (and private laboratory) will come to whatever conclusion the grant pays them to find. Professors might even authorize their students to commit assault on people who disagree with the man-made global warming theory as long as they can still trade in that old Lexus for a new model.



do you have a degree in
paranoia and conspiracies?


----------



## Misty (Oct 10, 2015)

Dante said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > But the science is settled!
> ...


Don't get me started on NASA. That's a whole thread of its own.


----------



## gtopa1 (Oct 10, 2015)

Dante said:


> So a guy with degrees in math goes on his wife's blog, and he's your credible climate scientist, yet most every single climate scientist in the world agree with the globe has warmed and man has something to do with it?
> 
> Okay -- and you and your blogger know more about the science than NASA does NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming



No you dill; just one of many....and I have supplied you with some of them. I am interested in this guy's calculations and how they stand up to peer review. You aren't. You use the old Chicago style of politics....lie and cheat!!!

Greg


----------



## gtopa1 (Oct 10, 2015)

Dante said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > Government funded university research often brings out the greed rather than the truth. A hundred years ago a government/private industry sponsored Harvard research grant found that high incidents of cancer in factory workers exposed to radioactive material had nothing to do with painting radium dials on WW1 military equipment. In other words you can bet your ass(ets) that a university (and private laboratory) will come to whatever conclusion the grant pays them to find. Professors might even authorize their students to commit assault on people who disagree with the man-made global warming theory as long as they can still trade in that old Lexus for a new model.
> ...



I'm not an "end of worlder", cultist!!

Greg


----------



## gtopa1 (Oct 10, 2015)

Dante said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



You're a fraud!!

Greg


----------



## gtopa1 (Oct 10, 2015)

westwall said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



POPPER IS MY HERO!!!

Greg


----------



## westwall (Oct 10, 2015)

Dante said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah?  So?  They are logic fails that are relied on by people incapable of defending their position through lack of facts.
> ...









"97% CONSENSUS"  ring a bell?  I know it's hard for a mental midget such as yourself to understand simple English but I laid it out for you as obviously as I could.


----------



## westwall (Oct 10, 2015)

Dante said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...









No, I claim that the scientific method and the proper following of it, demonstrates the utter failure of the warmists to support their claims.  They claim that CO2 drives temperatures.  Show us.  Yes, we all know that CO2 is a GHG.  But there is no empirical data whatsoever that shows it has any effect on the global temperature. 

None. 

YOU have made the claim.

So, prove it.


----------



## gtopa1 (Oct 10, 2015)

Dante said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah?  So?  They are logic fails that are relied on by people incapable of defending their position through lack of facts.
> ...



That only depends on if you are lying about what the Scientists actually say and then infer "the end is nigh" bullshit!!

Yep: you're a liar and a fraud!!

Greg


----------



## westwall (Oct 10, 2015)

Dante said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > Government funded university research *often* brings out the greed rather than the truth.
> ...







Yet another appeal to authority.  The Church used to say that Galileo was wrong.  They had a 97% consensus on that too.  The same with Copernicus, and Darwin etc.  It is always the religious freaks who demand that no one question their dogma, and threaten those who do, with violence.


----------



## Flopper (Oct 10, 2015)

Misty said:


> "A former climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, with six degrees in applied mathematics, Dr Evans has unpacked the architecture of the basic climate model which underpins all climate science.
> 
> *He has found that, while the underlying physics of the model is correct, it had been applied incorrectly.
> 
> ...


 Once you weed through the considerable empty and inflammatory rhetoric in Evans' opinion article, the meat consists of a number of long-debunked myths and gross misunderstandings of basic climate science.  Evans' article is the "skeptic" equivalent of eating red hot candies: not much substance, empty calories, but it gets the blood boiling!

David Evans' Understanding of the Climate Goes Cold


----------



## gtopa1 (Oct 10, 2015)

westwall said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



I am willing to concede that there may be a MINOR contribution, but I do wish they wouldn't adjust the Historical record to show it as being much higher. I hate lying scum!!!

Greg


----------



## westwall (Oct 10, 2015)

gtopa1 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...








CO2's contribution is so faint that it's signal is totally absorbed by the water vapor signal.  If the Earth had no water vapor then the CO2 that we have might be able to raise the global temp from -278 to -277.  Might.  But as the Earth is gifted with water vapor in abundance the CO2 effect is completely wiped out by the thermal blanket effect the water gives us.


----------



## gtopa1 (Oct 10, 2015)

westwall said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



To be fair to the Church they DID ask Galileo to present his ideas and show his maths. But it took a lot to change their view and rightly so; it took PEER REVIEW to eventually change their stance. The cultists today are DOGMATIC ABOUT IT!! 



> The Roman Catholic Church convicted him of breaking his agreement of 1616 and of teaching the Copernican theory as a truth and not a hypothesis.



http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/galileo.html

Actually the Church was quite correct. We now know of course that even Galileo was "wrong" as the Sun is NOT the Centre of the Universe; only of the Solar System. The mockers won't get it of course...but whenever they claim a "TRUTH" they are actually quite wrong. In fact I doubt that the mockers have any clue at all. 

Greg


----------



## gtopa1 (Oct 10, 2015)

westwall said:


> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



And that is the point. They remind me of someone going to the beach at low tide and then running screaming to the town nearby that they are about to be destroyed because "the waters are upon them". lol

Greg


----------



## Rustic (Oct 10, 2015)

Dante said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...


I just don't believe in pseudoscience...

Embrace the suck


----------



## westwall (Oct 10, 2015)

gtopa1 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...







That is correct.  Science doesn't concern itself with 'truth'.  Truth is for the religious philosophers to discuss.  Science is only concerned with facts and observation of the physical world and the recording of those observations.  Any scientist who brings morality into a scientific discussion has left science behind and entered into the realm of theology.


----------



## Rustic (Oct 10, 2015)

To be a good "climate scientist"(wait, is that even a legitimate profession??)anyway, where was I?. Oh! Is to be able to guess  randomly.

Hashtag polar bears have no home


----------



## westwall (Oct 10, 2015)

Rustic said:


> To be a good "climate scientist"(wait, is that even a legitimate profession??)anyway, where was I?. Oh! Is to be able to guess  randomly.
> 
> Hashtag polar bears have no home








There are some legit climatologists.  They are few and far between, but there are some.


----------



## Dante (Oct 10, 2015)

gtopa1 said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > So a guy with degrees in math goes on his wife's blog, and he's your credible climate scientist, yet most every single climate scientist in the world agree with the globe has warmed and man has something to do with it?
> ...


peer review?

What peers, bloggers?


----------



## Dante (Oct 10, 2015)

westwall said:


> There are some legit climatologists.  They are few and far between, but there are some.



and what is the criteria for legitimacy in your view -- ideology?


----------



## westwall (Oct 10, 2015)

Dante said:


> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...









Better them than the authors wife, like your assholes use.


----------



## Dante (Oct 10, 2015)

Misty said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


yeah, to the moon Alice, To the moon.


----------



## westwall (Oct 10, 2015)

Dante said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > There are some legit climatologists.  They are few and far between, but there are some.
> ...








No.  Adherence to the scientific method.  Still waiting for you to post it up and how it affects appeals to authority.


----------



## Dante (Oct 10, 2015)

westwall said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Is the hard-on you people have with the IPPC all over the 'I' - International?


----------



## Dante (Oct 10, 2015)

westwall said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


NASA posts scientific facts that don't adhere to your scientific method?

NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming


----------



## westwall (Oct 10, 2015)

Dante said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...









Non-sequitur now?  Boy, when you lose the plot you really lose it!  How about addressing what they say in the Report numbskull.   Go on, it won't hurt your peanut sized brain too much....I promise it won't!


----------



## westwall (Oct 10, 2015)

Dante said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...








Do you understand the difference between OPINION (what is linked to here) and empirical data?  No....no I think you're not smart enough to understand the difference.  You're like all the other religious nut cases pushing global warming.  You have lot's and lot's of dogma and scripture, but you're precious short on actual facts.  

I guess that's why they call it faith huh bunky?


----------



## Dante (Oct 10, 2015)

westwall said:


> How about addressing what they say in the Report numbskull.   Go on, it won't hurt your peanut sized brain too much....I promise it won't!


The report? I have no hard-on with the IPPC IPCC ABCD none.

The day the scientific community comes out and says "We were all wrong and that anonymous twit on the message board was correct" I'll struggle with my conscious. Until then, I will forever see you as an old fool who thinks his science degree from ages ago makes him more of an expert on climate science than most every single climate scientist in the world


----------



## Rustic (Oct 10, 2015)

Dante said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > How about addressing what they say in the Report numbskull.   Go on, it won't hurt your peanut sized brain too much....I promise it won't!
> ...



It is fine that you believe in man made climate change,global cooling, global warming or whatever the flavor of the week is, I don't care.
I am not buying it, we have bigger fish to fry. It is also just fine if people Are not buying the man made climate change theory too.
I don't get why the climate change believers want everyone to believe as they do??

It's just a matter of opinion...


----------



## westwall (Oct 10, 2015)

Dante said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > How about addressing what they say in the Report numbskull.   Go on, it won't hurt your peanut sized brain too much....I promise it won't!
> ...







You say there is no pause.  THEY say there is.  THEY are THE driving force in the political effort to impoverish the people of this planet.  They say YOU.... are wrong.


----------



## kaz (Oct 11, 2015)

westwall said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



Yes, the data on global warming is clearly unclear.  The scientific honesty is to keep an open mind.  The last thing a liberal has.  there is no validity in science until you can predict the future, not just explain the past.  And the global warming science has been consistently wrong with every prediction


----------



## Dante (Oct 11, 2015)

Rustic said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


global warming is not JUST an opinion. 

there is a field in science concerned with climate change.  you must have been one of those people who believed the science was not in on cigs and cancer


----------



## Dante (Oct 11, 2015)

westwall said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Okay. another ideological arguments from the self-professed scientist?

There is a political effort intended to impoverish the planet? You disbelieve climate science, yet you believe in political conspiracies intending to impoverish the planet.  okay


----------



## Dante (Oct 11, 2015)

kaz said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...


again, another ideological argument, not a scientific one


----------



## gtopa1 (Oct 11, 2015)

Dante said:


> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



Maybe you should READ the bloody link!! It has been submitted to TWO journals and is currently undergoing peer review. Do keep up. 

Greg


----------



## kaz (Oct 11, 2015)

Dante said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



That made no sense, Holmes.  In fact you just showed the reverse, for you global warming's about ideology


----------



## kaz (Oct 11, 2015)

Dante said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



Yet that "science" can't predict anything accurately, which is the basic first test of scientific theory


----------



## Dante (Oct 11, 2015)

kaz said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...


Denial


----------



## Dante (Oct 11, 2015)

kaz said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


you attack opponents views as being views of a liberal.  

that is an ideological argument


----------



## Dante (Oct 11, 2015)

kaz said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...


When NASA launched men to go land on the moon and come back. The theories that this could happen were based on predictions

Oh yeah, you disagree with NASA too


----------



## kaz (Oct 11, 2015)

Dante said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Ditto, you aren't offering anything but your personal testimony that's it's true and belief that someone out there proved it.  Global warming is a religion to liberals.  I haven't said it's not true, I said I have an open mind.  But the reality is that all the evidence is inconclusive.  You describe an open mind on the subject as ideology and your blind belief in that which isn't proven as science.

Dante is one self deluded Hombre


----------



## kaz (Oct 11, 2015)

Dante said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



Dante doesn't know what the word ideology means.

So just to be clear, when you accuse me of being ideological, you tell me I'm ideological for calling you ideological, but you calling me ideological isn't ideology.

Hypocrisy much?


----------



## kaz (Oct 11, 2015)

Dante said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



Predictions which were backed by many empirical tests that validated them.  

For your analogy to global warming to work, the predictions would have had to have been inconclusive whether the astronauts would make it back.  Obviously they were not inconclusive.

That is obvious from what I said, is Dante sure he read it?


----------



## gtopa1 (Oct 11, 2015)

Dante said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



Mechanics has fantastic predictive powers. AGW not so much....in fact near ZERO!!!

Greg


----------



## gtopa1 (Oct 11, 2015)

kaz said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



I would suggest that he is just a liar. Nothing to see there, folk. Move along now....lol

Greg


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 11, 2015)

Dante said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



Wha...............?







^ Guam, still upright and above water


----------



## Misty (Oct 11, 2015)

Dante said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...


NASA has changed since then. Since we no longer go to space NASA must generate some way to justify it's 17 billion dollar funding.


----------



## westwall (Oct 11, 2015)

Dante said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...










No, my argument is the satellite data shows no warming.  EMPIRICAL FACT.  Your group says there has been and points to a computer generated fiction to support their contention. 

They do this to support their desire to completely restructure the energy, food distribution, and redistribute the wealth of the world.  That is THEIR goal.  Not ours.  THEIRS is the politically driven operation.  We wish for things to remain as they are.  

Under us the people get to live their normal lives.  

Under you the people get to lose 76 trillion of their dollars that will be hoovered up by the already wealthy and the uber rich, and the result will be less for everyone else.

It is the ultimate form of class warfare.


----------



## BluesLegend (Oct 11, 2015)

Its not about climate change, its about attacking corporations the left hates, that's all its about. Facts, the truth, its meaningless to these people.


----------



## mamooth (Oct 11, 2015)

This thread keeps getting uglier, as the deniers keep getting more unhinged and retreat further into their alternate reality. That happens with dying cults. Jonestown wasn't a pleasant place near the end. Deniers, I suggest you start quietly slipping out into the jungle now, before the koolaid vat comes out. I do understand that the most dedicated cultists here will be staying until the end and proudly forcing the less enthusiastic cultists to drink up. After all, if you've dedicated your life to the cult, where else can you go?

Now, getting back to the thread topic, here are a bunch of takedowns of the Dave Evans conspiracy nonsense. Higher level stuff, and few here can understand it, but the point is that Evans wrote a bunch of nonsense, and everyone who understands the math and science knows what nonsense it was.

http://rankexploits.com/musings/201...s-what-do-you-mean-about-partial-derivatives/

Force F from outer space

Not even partially correct

moyhu:  On partial derivatives


----------



## gtopa1 (Oct 11, 2015)

mamooth said:


> This thread keeps getting uglier, as the deniers keep getting more unhinged and retreat further into their alternate reality. That happens with dying cults. Jonestown wasn't a pleasant place near the end. Deniers, I suggest you start quietly slipping out into the jungle now, before the koolaid vat comes out. I do understand that the most dedicated cultists here will be staying until the end and proudly forcing the less enthusiastic cultists to drink up. After all, if you've dedicated your life to the cult, where else can you go?
> 
> Now, getting back to the thread topic, here are a bunch of takedowns of the Dave Evans conspiracy nonsense. Higher level stuff, and few here can understand it, but the point is that Evans wrote a bunch of nonsense, and everyone who understands the math and science knows what nonsense it was.
> 
> ...



You joining the Alarmists in a Denier Pogrom?? Same old story; at the heart of a socialist is violence!!

Greg


----------



## Dante (Oct 11, 2015)

westwall said:


> No, my argument is the satellite data shows no warming.  EMPIRICAL FACT.  Your group says there has been and points to a computer generated fiction to support their contention.
> 
> They do this to support their desire to completely restructure the energy, food distribution, and redistribute the wealth of the world.  That is THEIR goal.  Not ours.  THEIRS is the politically driven operation.  We wish for things to remain as they are.
> 
> ...


So NASA and the world's scientific community are on board with this attempt to -- what did you actually write "_completely restructure the energy, food distribution, and redistribute the wealth of the world_"?

if that doesn't sound nuts to you there is no hope


----------



## Dante (Oct 11, 2015)

BluesLegend said:


> Its not about climate change, its about attacking corporations the left hates, that's all its about. Facts, the truth, its meaningless to these people.


So NASA and the world's scientific community are _the left_?


----------



## BluesLegend (Oct 12, 2015)

Dante said:


> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> > Its not about climate change, its about attacking corporations the left hates, that's all its about. Facts, the truth, its meaningless to these people.
> ...



NASA has been corrupted by lying lowlife scum liberals.


----------



## kaz (Oct 12, 2015)

mamooth said:


> This thread keeps getting uglier, as the deniers keep getting more unhinged and retreat further into their alternate reality. That happens with dying cults. Jonestown wasn't a pleasant place near the end. Deniers, I suggest you start quietly slipping out into the jungle now, before the koolaid vat comes out. I do understand that the most dedicated cultists here will be staying until the end and proudly forcing the less enthusiastic cultists to drink up. After all, if you've dedicated your life to the cult, where else can you go?
> 
> Now, getting back to the thread topic, here are a bunch of takedowns of the Dave Evans conspiracy nonsense. Higher level stuff, and few here can understand it, but the point is that Evans wrote a bunch of nonsense, and everyone who understands the math and science knows what nonsense it was.
> 
> ...



And you personally know global warming is real and man made how?


----------



## paulitician (Oct 12, 2015)

Climate Change happens. There's no need to freak out and panic over it. The Planet warms, the Planet cools. Most should have known to be skeptical of the fear mongering when Politicians got involved. Politics has invaded the realm of Science now. It's tainted. Get the Politicians out of it, and we can get back to real Science again.


----------



## Misty (Oct 12, 2015)

Dante said:


> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> > Its not about climate change, its about attacking corporations the left hates, that's all its about. Facts, the truth, its meaningless to these people.
> ...


Yes


----------



## paulitician (Oct 12, 2015)

The 'Global Warming' scam is all about a 'One World Government.' Climate Change is being used to scare the People into supporting a massive Global Government takeover. 

It all comes down to choosing either Freedom & Liberty, or complete Government control and dominance over your life. Me personally, i'm choosing Freedom & Liberty. I'll take my chances with the Global Warming Boogeyman. Bring him on.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Oct 12, 2015)

mamooth said:


> There have already been two threads in the Environment folder where this got laughed at. But I get it, when conservatives get their marching orders, they all rush to obey.
> 
> Evans is a clown who botched the math and physics. However, you won't be able to convince a denier of that, being their faith in their conspiracy theory is unshakable. According to them, the last 3 centuries of math and physics are all wrong, overturned by an electrical engineer political fanatic. Yeah, that's probably it.
> 
> If Evans isn't a clown, he merely needs to use his theory to make climate predictions, and show those predictions come true. Mainstream climate science has been getting everything right for decades, which is why it has such credibility. Of course, like every other denier, Evans won't have the guts to put his credibility on the line by making predictions, or to submit his work to peer review.


So when is the sky going to fall?....
Why is it you are so anxious to have your taxes increased, the economy scuttled due to onerous regulations and even more jobs sent out of the country?


mamooth said:


> There have already been two threads in the Environment folder where this got laughed at. But I get it, when conservatives get their marching orders, they all rush to obey.
> 
> Evans is a clown who botched the math and physics. However, you won't be able to convince a denier of that, being their faith in their conspiracy theory is unshakable. According to them, the last 3 centuries of math and physics are all wrong, overturned by an electrical engineer political fanatic. Yeah, that's probably it.
> 
> If Evans isn't a clown, he merely needs to use his theory to make climate predictions, and show those predictions come true. Mainstream climate science has been getting everything right for decades, which is why it has such credibility. Of course, like every other denier, Evans won't have the guts to put his credibility on the line by making predictions, or to submit his work to peer review.


So . tell us when the sky will begin falling.
Why are you so anxious to see your taxes increased, the enactment of even more onerous regulations on business and more jobs sent out of the country?


----------



## thereisnospoon (Oct 12, 2015)

mamooth said:


> There have already been two threads in the Environment folder where this got laughed at. But I get it, when conservatives get their marching orders, they all rush to obey.
> 
> Evans is a clown who botched the math and physics. However, you won't be able to convince a denier of that, being their faith in their conspiracy theory is unshakable. According to them, the last 3 centuries of math and physics are all wrong, overturned by an electrical engineer political fanatic. Yeah, that's probably it.
> 
> If Evans isn't a clown, he merely needs to use his theory to make climate predictions, and show those predictions come true. Mainstream climate science has been getting everything right for decades, which is why it has such credibility. Of course, like every other denier, Evans won't have the guts to put his credibility on the line by making predictions, or to submit his work to peer review.


Do you drive a motor vehicle? Use electricity? 
Then you are part of the problem and have no right to an opinion.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Oct 12, 2015)

Dante said:


> So a scientist -- discovers this?
> 
> So the scientific community has NOT been lying if this news is taken to be credible. It only means science was incorrect and gets corrected as time goes on? Wow!
> 
> Science at work?  What will the right wing denier nuts do now, embrace science and scientists? Nah, they'll talk about Al Gore and other shit


Ahh ..The straw man argument. 
Yes, you're right, Those of us on the right eschew ALL scientific research...Sure.
Genius, did it ever occur to you that for example, many of these so called climate scientists are able to make a living because most of their funding comes from the federal government? With that said, if the administration asks for a study, would it not be fiscally prudent for those doing the study to produce the results the administration funding the research to be exactly what the administration wants to see?.
In other words, the scientists doing the work for the Obama administration are not likely to be unbiased in their conclusions.
Human caused climate change does not exist.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Oct 12, 2015)

Dante said:


> Misty said:
> 
> 
> > "A former climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, with six degrees in applied mathematics, Dr Evans has unpacked the architecture of the basic climate model which underpins all climate science.
> ...


Give up your car. Stop using electricity. otherwise, you are part of the problem.


----------



## Misty (Oct 12, 2015)

paulitician said:


> The 'Global Warming' scam is all about a 'One World Government.' Climate Change is being used to scare the People into supporting a massive Global Government takeover.
> 
> It all comes down to choosing either Freedom & Liberty, or complete Government control and dominance over your life. Me personally, i'm choosing Freedom & Liberty. I'll take my chances with the Global Warming Boogeyman. Bring him on.


Precisely.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Oct 12, 2015)

Dante said:


> *Favourite climate myths by David Evans*
> Below are many of the climate myths used by David Evans plus how often each myth has been used.
> 
> Climate misinformer: David Evans
> ...


Blah blah blah...
Genius.,..Nobody cares. 
This whole climate change thing is nothing more than a political agenda.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Oct 12, 2015)

BlindBoo said:


> Yawn, but then there is this.....
> 
> http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/missing-carbon/


And?


----------



## paulitician (Oct 12, 2015)

When are the Sheeple finally gonna get it? They're being herded in a particular direction. And that direction is hysterical panic. People who live in fear, generally accept anything their Government does. It's how the U.S. adopted Nazi legislation like the Patriot Act and NDAA.

People who are afraid turn to a 'Savior.' And in this case, it's an all-powerful One World Government. But in reality, you're gonna die from anything but 'Global Warming.' So there's absolutely no reason to live in fear of it. Just live, and enjoy your short time on this Planet.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Oct 12, 2015)

Dante said:


> Misty said:
> 
> 
> > Of course you'll. try to discredit him.
> ...


Referring to yourself in the third person? Please


Dante said:


> Misty said:
> 
> 
> > Of course you'll. try to discredit him.
> ...


Referring to yourself in the third person? Please.


Dante said:


> Misty said:
> 
> 
> > Of course you'll. try to discredit him.
> ...


Referring to yourself in the third person? Please...
Look, you and


Dante said:


> Misty said:
> 
> 
> > Of course you'll. try to discredit him.
> ...





Dante said:


> Misty said:
> 
> 
> > Of course you'll. try to discredit him.
> ...


You and others have convinced yourselves that climate change is due to human activity.
You agree with the political agenda that results from that belief.
That's where this is going. Simple politics.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Oct 12, 2015)

The OP doesnt believe scientists anyway.  So her saying that a scientist discovers errors either shows that now she believes scientists and will support their findings or this is bullshit because she doesnt believe anyone who says anything unless it matches what she already believes


----------



## thereisnospoon (Oct 12, 2015)

....


Dante said:


> Misty said:
> 
> 
> > He has 6 math degrees.
> ...


everything is tied to math.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Oct 12, 2015)

ClosedCaption said:


> The OP doesnt believe scientists anyway.  So her saying that a scientist discovers errors either shows that now she believes scientists and will support their findings or this is bullshit because she doesnt believe anyone who says anything unless it matches what she already believes





Misty said:


> my2¢ said:
> 
> 
> > He's predicting temperatures to start cooling down in 2017 and we'll have a mini-ice age by 2030.  If we see  temperatures stagnate until 2017 as he says then others will be forced to sit up and listen.  Otherwise, his credibility is out the window.
> ...


And the climate nattering naybobs would say "that's due to global cooling"


----------



## BlindBoo (Oct 12, 2015)

thereisnospoon said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Yawn, but then there is this.....
> ...



It is an example of a real error in the current climate modeling. When observation doesn't match the predictions.......


----------



## Misty (Oct 12, 2015)

thereisnospoon said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > The OP doesnt believe scientists anyway.  So her saying that a scientist discovers errors either shows that now she believes scientists and will support their findings or this is bullshit because she doesnt believe anyone who says anything unless it matches what she already believes
> ...


Yes that's why it went from global warming to climate change. That alone should make people skeptical.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Oct 12, 2015)

Republicans main sticking point is always what you call something.

Call them terrorist!  Freedom Fries!  

They are very ADD that way


----------



## Misty (Oct 12, 2015)

BlindBoo said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...


When they successfully tell me what the weather will be a month in advance I'll give them credit for actually predicting weather.  But they can't even do that.


----------



## Flash (Oct 12, 2015)

The Scammers have quite a record on this bullshit.

First we learned from Climategate that data was fabricated.

Then we learned that NASA and NOAA had fabricated data.

Then we learned that all a fudge factor was added to most of the world wide temperature data.

Now we are learning that the computer models were corrupted.

But yet these Moon Bats claim that it is "settled science".

Fucking morons!.


----------



## BlindBoo (Oct 12, 2015)

thereisnospoon said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > The OP doesnt believe scientists anyway.  So her saying that a scientist discovers errors either shows that now she believes scientists and will support their findings or this is bullshit because she doesnt believe anyone who says anything unless it matches what she already believes
> ...



Since it's not true, most scientist ignore it.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Oct 12, 2015)

BlindBoo said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...


No...Simply put, it is the uncovering of flawed data. Data to be used for political purposes.
The earths climate cycles are in constant flux. And there isn't a damned thing we can do about it.


----------



## BlindBoo (Oct 12, 2015)

Misty said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...



An honest scientist will tell you that here is no accurate computer climate model.


----------



## Misty (Oct 12, 2015)

Flash said:


> The Scammers have quite a record on this bullshit.
> 
> First we learned from Climategate that data was fabricated.
> 
> ...


That's the thing about science, it is never settled. Theories are always changing. That's why this so called consensus of scientists is utter bull crap.


----------



## mamooth (Oct 12, 2015)

thereisnospoon said:


> Do you drive a motor vehicle? Use electricity?
> Then you are part of the problem and have no right to an opinion.



Look, if you deniers want to live in caves and swear off modern technology, do it. Go on, worship your earth goddess all you want. We have no problems with that. Just stop trying to force everyone else to live under your weird Gaian cult rules. While you're rolling around in the dirt, all the normal people are happily working on how to create a sustainable modern technological society.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Oct 12, 2015)

BlindBoo said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...


Wanna bet.....
Cookie, whenever the data reported on this climate thing is debunked, the typical response from the left wing, is "global cooling".....
For example, during the mid 2000's the US was influenced by several land falling hurricanes. In the last 10 years, that trend has waned significantly.
IOf course the so called scientists and those complicit with the environmentalist movement immediately began to screech "Global warming!".....
Since the frequency of landfalling storms has been reduced, they now have tyo come up with a different narrative. That is "global cooling"...
Or , they just stick with "the reason why there are so few hurricanes to hit the US is due to global warming"....
Last winter was one the coldest and snowiest winters for the US in the last 100 years. 
Of course the reason for this put forth by the left wing environmentalist movement was......"Climate change"


----------



## Misty (Oct 12, 2015)

BlindBoo said:


> Misty said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...


Then there are very few honest scientists.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Oct 12, 2015)

mamooth said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > Do you drive a motor vehicle? Use electricity?
> ...


There is no such thing as a "denier"....This is a made up term. Made up by the environazi left in order to protect the narrative.
And I see you have no response to the fact that you are still using fossil fuels and then advocating for their non use. 
So shut up....


----------



## g5000 (Oct 12, 2015)

Misty said:


> *“Yes, CO2 has an effect, but it’s about a fifth or tenth of what the IPCC says it is. CO2 is not driving the climate; it caused less than 20 per cent of the global warming in the last few decades”.*


*
*
The Australian claims CO2 causes less than 20 percent of global warming.  So he is clearly saying it does cause some global warming.  Therefore, your next sentence is retarded:



Misty said:


> CO2 is not causing global warming.



Let the big kids deals with the science, because you clearly don't understand even the simplest things.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Oct 12, 2015)

Flash said:


> The Scammers have quite a record on this bullshit.
> 
> First we learned from Climategate that data was fabricated.
> 
> ...




You didnt learn any of that


----------



## BlindBoo (Oct 12, 2015)

thereisnospoon said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...



The data is the observation that something in the earth's climate is absorbing more man made (released) CO2 than most climate scientist expected.  The error was in the model.  That's how the scientific method works.


----------



## Misty (Oct 12, 2015)

g5000 said:


> Misty said:
> 
> 
> > *“Yes, CO2 has an effect, but it’s about a fifth or tenth of what the IPCC says it is. CO2 is not driving the climate; it caused less than 20 per cent of the global warming in the last few decades”.*
> ...


No it has no effect. Read the whole piece dear and then read other things about global warming and you will understand that we are being systematically lied to in order to take away our cars our coal our electricity our businesses in order to give more power to the government and less to the people.


----------



## mamooth (Oct 12, 2015)

kaz said:


> And you personally know global warming is real and man made how?



Because all the directly measured evidence shows it. And not a single model of any sort is required, so that big denier conspiracy lie there won't work as an evasion.

I do understand how your conspiracy cult demands you declare that all the evidence is fake. After all, that's why you're called deniers. Denying reality is the defining characteristic of your cult.

Feel free to keep denying reality. We certainly can't stop you. Just understand that everyone is laughing at you, provided they're not ignoring you completely. You're in the same category as flat earthers, birthers, antivaxxers, 9/11 truthers, moon lander hoax believers, grassy knollers, illumaniti conspiracists and homeopaths.


----------



## g5000 (Oct 12, 2015)

Misty said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > Misty said:
> ...



Read your own link:



> “*Yes, CO2 has an effect*, but it’s about a fifth or tenth of what the IPCC says it is.



There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.


----------



## Flash (Oct 12, 2015)

Misty said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > The Scammers have quite a record on this bullshit.
> ...




In this case there is more than just disagreement among scientists.  There is a strong record of deceit.


----------



## kaz (Oct 12, 2015)

mamooth said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > And you personally know global warming is real and man made how?
> ...



So you'vepersonally examined the evidence and understand the model and what it shows and implies?

As for the rest, I know liberals are bigots who think you know what everyone things, but you don't, your strawmen are wrong


----------



## CowboyTed (Oct 12, 2015)

OP looks to be full of shit:
Climate misinformer: David Evans

On other threads we have spanked the deniers ass up and down the street...


----------



## g5000 (Oct 12, 2015)

The guy in the OP has been blogging.  He has not submitted his work for peer review, so for now it is best to take it with a big grain of salt.


----------



## Misty (Oct 12, 2015)

Flash said:


> Misty said:
> 
> 
> > Flash said:
> ...


Exactly. An error in entering the data seems like it was done on purpose to fudge the information.


----------



## mamooth (Oct 12, 2015)

thereisnospoon said:


> Cookie, whenever the data reported on this climate thing is debunked, the typical response from the left wing, is "global cooling".....



What are you babbling about? Nobody on the rational side ever invokes global cooling. Only deniers rave about global cooling. Deniers have been predicting an imminent cooling for years, as Evans just did again, and have been proven to be hilariously wrong, given how the world just keeps warming strongly.



> For example, during the mid 2000's the US was influenced by several land falling hurricanes. In the last 10 years, that trend has waned significantly.



Given global warming theory doesn't predict more hurricanes, your point there seems to be you have no idea what global warming theory says, so you're just making up crazy stories.

In other words, you're a typical denier.

Now, tell us some more about this global cooling that most of your denier pals believe in so strongly. When is it going to arrive?


----------



## Misty (Oct 12, 2015)

g5000 said:


> The scientist has been blogging.  He has not submitted his work for peer review, so for now it is best to take it with a grain of salt.


Yes but others have submitted their opinions and they are ignored and not invited to global summits involving discussions on global warming. 

Why?  Why not let all opinions be examined instead of silencing the dissenters?


----------



## g5000 (Oct 12, 2015)

Misty said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > The scientist has been blogging.  He has not submitted his work for peer review, so for now it is best to take it with a grain of salt.
> ...


You would have to provide specific examples. 

Let us know when this guy has submitted his work for peer review.


----------



## Misty (Oct 12, 2015)

mamooth said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > Cookie, whenever the data reported on this climate thing is debunked, the typical response from the left wing, is "global cooling".....
> ...


"The reality is that NO scientist on the planet can tell you with credible probability whether the climate in 2030 will be cooler or warmer than today."

A quote from scientists in the book Global Warming: The Facts.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Oct 12, 2015)

g5000 said:


> Misty said:
> 
> 
> > *“Yes, CO2 has an effect, but it’s about a fifth or tenth of what the IPCC says it is. CO2 is not driving the climate; it caused less than 20 per cent of the global warming in the last few decades”.*
> ...



She quoted them saying it was causing global warming only to then assert that it doesnt in the very next sentence.  Thats some hard core brainwashing there


----------



## Flash (Oct 12, 2015)

Misty said:


> [
> Exactly. An error in entering the data seems like it was done on purpose to fudge the information.



In reality the climate change we see on a year to year basis is about the same we have always seen.  Sometime it is hot, sometime it is cold, sometime it is dry and sometime it is wet.

The scammers have been unable to prove the drastic changes in climate that they were predicting 20 years ago because it hasn't happen.

Since they can show real climate change caused by man made source they fabricate data.

The whole scam operation should have been shut down years with the original Climategate revelations but it wasn't because it is like a religion to these stupid Moon Bats.


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 12, 2015)

Come on, by now everyone knows...


----------



## Misty (Oct 12, 2015)

For the last 18 years, weather satellites have not seem an increase in global temperature.


----------



## mamooth (Oct 12, 2015)

kaz said:


> So you've personally examined the evidence and understand the model and what it shows and implies?



Well, yes. Not every individual measurement, but I've certainly seen the papers and results.

I see the warming temperatures, the stratospheric cooling, the increase in backradiation, the decrease in outgoing longwave in the greenhouse gas bands. There is no explanation for such data other than global warming theory. 

If you or any denier has a better explanation for the data, they need to present it. So far, they haven't. Either they declare the data is faked, or they wave their hands around wildly and yell "natural cycles!", even though things like the stratospheric cooling directly contradict any natural cycles theory.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Oct 12, 2015)

mamooth said:


> There have already been two threads in the Environment folder where this got laughed at. But I get it, when conservatives get their marching orders, they all rush to obey.
> 
> Evans is a clown who botched the math and physics. However, you won't be able to convince a denier of that, being their faith in their conspiracy theory is unshakable. According to them, the last 3 centuries of math and physics are all wrong, overturned by an electrical engineer political fanatic. Yeah, that's probably it.
> 
> If Evans isn't a clown, he merely needs to use his theory to make climate predictions, and show those predictions come true. Mainstream climate science has been getting everything right for decades, which is why it has such credibility. Of course, like every other denier, Evans won't have the guts to put his credibility on the line by making predictions, or to submit his work to peer review.



Bottom line:

There is no evidence of GW.... its all based on models.  Hardly science... if these environutters had been right, we should have all been dead decades ago.  But, they're never right.  Thats why I just laugh at all these leftwing bedwetters driving around their stupid little electric cars.  Sorry, I'll keep my Suburban.


----------



## mamooth (Oct 12, 2015)

Misty said:


> Yes but others have submitted their opinions and they are ignored and not invited to global summits involving discussions on global warming.
> 
> Why?  Why not let all opinions be examined instead of silencing the dissenters?



No dissenters are being silenced. that's a kind of pathetic claim victimhood tantrum. Laughing at terrible science is not the same thing as silencing people.

Tell us, if antivaxxers and homeopaths aren't invited to a medical conference, are the dissenters being silenced?


----------



## thereisnospoon (Oct 12, 2015)

Misty said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Misty said:
> ...


Their conclusions are guided by whomever is paying them.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Oct 12, 2015)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > There have already been two threads in the Environment folder where this got laughed at. But I get it, when conservatives get their marching orders, they all rush to obey.
> ...


The global warming/climate change crowd is stimulated by studies of what "might" or "could" happen.


----------



## mamooth (Oct 12, 2015)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Bottom line:
> 
> There is no evidence of GW.... its all based on models.



Bottom line: You show yourself to be ignorant of the science. The direct evidence supports global warming theory. No models at all are needed. The success of the models is just icing on the cake.



> Hardly science... if these environutters had been right, we should have all been dead decades ago.  But, they're never right.  Thats why I just laugh at all these leftwing bedwetters



Without exception, every single denier is proud member of the right-wing-fringe extremist cult. Denialism has nothing to do with science. It's entirely about political cultists repeating what their political masters spoonfeed to them. Denialism isn't the actual cult. Right-wing fruitloopism is the cult. Denialism is just a symptom, one of the required mantras of that cult.

In direct contrast, the rational people hail from every political group all across the world. And they don't rave about political demons; they talk about science. We can do that, being how global warming science is actual science instead of politics.

Real science is falsifiable. There are many way global warming science could be falsified, being it's real science. Denialism? I've asked its acolytes many times what evidence would disprove denialism. They never answer. There is no such evidence, because it's not possible to disprove a religion.


----------



## BlindBoo (Oct 12, 2015)

thereisnospoon said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...



I'll take that bet.

Global warming 'pause' didn't happen, study finds


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Oct 12, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> > Bottom line:
> ...



Are you high or something?  That makes no sense whatsoever.  _Denialism_?  What's to deny?  Kind of hard to deny something that isn't real.  But hey, have at it Chicken Little... the sky IS falling!!!


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Oct 12, 2015)

I think I'm going to go drive my Suburban a block down the street to the convenience store.


----------



## Flash (Oct 12, 2015)

thereisnospoon said:


> [Q
> 
> The global warming/climate change crowd is stimulated by studies of what "might" or "could" happen.



I think there is also a little bit of "what they want" in it.

They all want a Walden Pond communist society and technology screws that idea up.


----------



## mamooth (Oct 12, 2015)

Soggy in NOLA said:
			
		

> Are you high or something?



Of higher intelligence, sure. A commonality among deniers is that they're a rather slow crowd. Smart people simply don't get sucked into that cult.



> That makes no sense whatsoever.  _Denialism_?  What's to deny?  Kind of hard to deny something that isn't real.



You're denying the increasing temperatures and the human cause, all of which is directly supported by data that's directly observable. You're denying reality, hence you're a denier.

But hey, maybe there really is a VastSecretGlobalSocialistPlot, and you and a small handful of political fringe cultists are the only people in the world who see the RealTruth. Yeah, that's the ticket.



> But hey, have at it Chicken Little... the sky IS falling!!!



You can rage on message boards all you want, but the world has left you behind. The American Republican party is the last significant political group on the planet to still bitterly cling to the failed conspiracy theory of denialism. All of the other conservative parties of the world have abandoned your sinking ship.


----------



## Dante (Oct 12, 2015)

paulitician said:


> Climate Change happens. There's no need to freak out and panic over it. The Planet warms, the Planet cools. Most should have known to be skeptical of the fear mongering when Politicians got involved. Politics has invaded the realm of Science now. It's tainted. Get the Politicians out of it, and we can get back to real Science again.


Scientists started the whole thing, not politicians. As usual you have the cart before the horse and no one has ever claimed the planet warming and cooling off is unusual


----------



## Dante (Oct 12, 2015)

Misty said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > So NASA and the world's scientific community are _the left_?
> ...


and there we have it


----------



## Dante (Oct 12, 2015)

paulitician said:


> The 'Global Warming' scam is all about a 'One World Government.' Climate Change is being used to scare the People into supporting a massive Global Government takeover.
> 
> It all comes down to choosing either Freedom & Liberty, or complete Government control and dominance over your life. Me personally, i'm choosing Freedom & Liberty. I'll take my chances with the Global Warming Boogeyman. Bring him on.


go back to your usual haunt -- the conspiracy forums


----------



## Dante (Oct 12, 2015)

thereisnospoon said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > So a scientist -- discovers this?
> ...


another ideological conspiracy posing as an argument?

no thanx


----------



## Dante (Oct 12, 2015)

thereisnospoon said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Misty said:
> ...


Save the planet. Kill yourself. -- it's an old phrase I remember from a banner at a rally.


----------



## g5000 (Oct 12, 2015)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> I think I'm going to go drive my Suburban a block down the street to the convenience store.


You will have to drive around the Jade Helm FEMA concentration camp to get there.


----------



## Dante (Oct 12, 2015)

thereisnospoon said:


> Referring to yourself in the third person? Please...



Bob Dole


----------



## Dante (Oct 12, 2015)

thereisnospoon said:


> ....
> 
> everything is tied to math.


stop pretending your grasp of third grade math (back in the day, now, not so sure) make you qualified to speak as a scientist


----------



## Dante (Oct 12, 2015)

BlindBoo said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...


thank you


----------



## kaz (Oct 13, 2015)

mamooth said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > So you've personally examined the evidence and understand the model and what it shows and implies?
> ...



ok, and as you examined this data, how did you eliminate normal climate fluctuations and other non-man made causes like the sun in your analysis of the data? And what does your analysis reveal is the cause of every prediction made by global warming nuts as being wrong?  In fact they are so wrong, they had to rename global warming to be "climate change?"

Just so you know, my sister is a left wing moon bat and she has a PhD in math specializing in theoretical statistics.  She estimates we need an absolute minimum of 150 years of actual data to have any statistically valid measurement.  How do you want me to phrase to her that you know she's full of shit?


----------



## Muhammed (Oct 13, 2015)

mamooth said:


> There have already been two threads in the Environment folder where this got laughed at. But I get it, when conservatives get their marching orders, they all rush to obey.
> 
> Evans is a clown who botched the math and physics. However, you won't be able to convince a denier of that, being their faith in their conspiracy theory is unshakable. According to them, the last 3 centuries of math and physics are all wrong, overturned by an electrical engineer political fanatic. Yeah, that's probably it.
> 
> If Evans isn't a clown, he merely needs to use his theory to make climate predictions, and show those predictions come true. Mainstream climate science has been getting everything right for decades, which is why it has such credibility. Of course, like every other denier, Evans won't have the guts to put his credibility on the line by making predictions, or to submit his work to peer review.



I've read several posts of your's while browsing through this forum.
I don't think you know jack shit about math or physics.


----------



## mamooth (Oct 13, 2015)

kaz said:


> ok, and as you examined this data, how did you eliminate normal climate fluctuations and other non-man made causes like the sun in your analysis of the data?



First, because we know the sun has been cooling as of late. Believe it or not, scientists measure such things. I know your cult has these visions of scientists slapping their heads and saying "The Sun! Why didn't we think of that!", but your cult is a bunch of loonies.

Second, because solar and other natural causes would all result in stratospheric warming. Instead, we see stratospheric cooling. That's a smoking gun for warming caused by greenhouse gasses, as is the increase in backradiation and decrease in outgoing longwave radiation in the GHG bands.



> And what does your analysis reveal is the cause of every prediction made by global warming nuts as being wrong?



Since the predictions have been very accurate, it reveals you're parroting the nonsense your conspiracy clique has been spoonfeeding you.

Now, I know your political cult requires you to faithfully repeat all the various fantasies. So, you and your fellow acolytes can just go on preaching to each other. Give each other those group hugs and the emotional validation that you crave. Try to convince each other that you're not crazy, and that you're really special brilliant and unique little snowflakes who know TheRealTruth which the world is trying to hush up.



> In fact they are so wrong, they had to rename global warming to be "climate change?"



Your Messiah/GodKing/DearLeader Bush and his administration coined that term, because they didn't want to admit to global warming. Do learn some history.



> Just so you know, my sister is a left wing moon bat and she has a PhD in math specializing in theoretical statistics.  She estimates we need an absolute minimum of 150 years of actual data to have any statistically valid measurement.  How do you want me to phrase to her that you know she's full of shit?



"You're full of shit" should cover it. I don't have to know the details. When the whole world disagrees with you, it invariably means you're full of shit.


----------



## kaz (Oct 13, 2015)

mamooth said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > ok, and as you examined this data, how did you eliminate normal climate fluctuations and other non-man made causes like the sun in your analysis of the data?
> ...



Just so you know, I have two modes.  Serious and fun.  If you want to have a serious discussion, cut the insults.  If you want to have fun we're good. 

I do find it amusing that apparently you're a skilled researcher capable of reading and interpreting extensive scientific data, a climatologist able to determine the long term effects as well as identify the causes of changes in climate, an astronomist who intimately knows the effect of astronomical events on earth climate and a mathematical and statistical guru who understands complicated mathematical multi variable algorithms and can accurately determining statistical significance on long term results of short term data measurements.  And at the same time you can't finish a sentence without a high school insult


----------



## mamooth (Oct 13, 2015)

kaz said:


> Just so you know, I have two modes.  Serious and fun.  If you want to have a serious discussion, cut the insults.  If you want to have fun we're good.



So you're saying you're willing to lose your insults now? That you won't be raving more about "global warming nuts" and "moonbats" and "bigots"?

Something about motes and beams comes to mind.



> I do find it amusing that apparently you're a skilled researcher capable of reading and interpreting extensive scientific data, a climatologist able to determine the long term effects as well as identify the causes of changes in climate, an astronomist who intimately knows the effect of astronomical events on earth climate and a mathematical and statistical guru who understands complicated mathematical multi variable algorithms and can accurately determining statistical significance on long term results of short term data measurements.



I find your double standards amusing, and indicative of how your politics distorts your view of science.

Any other discipline, you'd have no trouble with people standing on the shoulders of giants and giving a summary of what the current science says. But someone does that in climate science, and you all have meltdowns over it.



> And at the same time you can't finish a sentence without a high school insult



So after flinging your own insults, you cry about insults, kind of right after you started getting your ass handed to you. If I had to guess, you're setting up an excuse to get huffy and stomp off.


----------



## bedowin62 (Oct 13, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Since the predictions have been very accurate, it reveals you're parroting the nonsense your conspiracy clique has been spoonfeeding you.


 
no they havent idiiot; YOU'RE PARROTING NONSENSE


----------



## bedowin62 (Oct 13, 2015)

*Embarrassing Predictions Haunt the Global-Warming Industry*
www.thenewamerican.com/.../18888-embarrassing-predictions-haunt-the...

Cached
Similar
Aug 12, 2014 - Yet such predictions have turned out to be very, very *wrong*. ... But the accuracy of the *climate-change* predictions since the cooling fears melted away has hardly improved. ... Mass increases in *hurricanes*, tornadoes, and other natural ..... year left *alarmists* who had predicted *more extreme* weather linked to ...


----------



## paulitician (Oct 13, 2015)

Dante said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > The 'Global Warming' scam is all about a 'One World Government.' Climate Change is being used to scare the People into supporting a massive Global Government takeover.
> ...



No need to panic. You're gonna die from anything but 'Global Warming.' Seriously, it's true. So just live and enjoy the short time you have.


----------



## bedowin62 (Oct 13, 2015)

*Record Cold And Snow Destroy Global Warming Claims ...*
www.forbes.com/.../cold-and-snow-destroy-*global*-*warming*-claim...

Cached
Similar
Forbes
Loading...
Feb 25, 2015 - Yet another bitterly cold, snowy winter is destroying *alarmist global warming* ... once again that over-the-top *global warming* predictions are proving no *more* ... may have made it *more* likely, may have made it *worse* than it would have ... air can hold *more* moisture, so winter snow *storms* that used to bring 12 ...


----------



## Dante (Oct 13, 2015)

paulitician said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...


hey twerp, who said anything about panic? Oh, you usually do. 

never mind


----------



## paulitician (Oct 13, 2015)

bedowin62 said:


> *Record Cold And Snow Destroy Global Warming Claims ...*
> www.forbes.com/.../cold-and-snow-destroy-*global*-*warming*-claim...
> 
> Cached
> ...



It's a scam. It's being used by the One World Government Globalist crowd to scare the People into supporting absolute Government control of their lives. Frightened people look for 'Saviors.' And in this case, the One World Government Globalist folks are playing that Savior. 

It's 'Global Warming' today, it'll be 'Global Cooling' tomorrow. And then when that's done, they'll invent a new Boogeyman for the People to fear. The key is, to not live in fear. The Global Warming Boogeyman ain't gonna get ya. You're gonna die from anything but 'Global Warming.' I would advise just living and enjoying every day you have left on this Planet. Because it really is a short ride.


----------



## Dante (Oct 13, 2015)

bedowin62 said:


> *Record Cold And Snow Destroy Global Warming Claims ...*
> www.forbes.com/.../cold-and-snow-destroy-*global*-*warming*-claim...
> 
> Cached
> ...


really?

Didn't the global warming data suggest weird weather like the ones cited? I guess a simpleton like you think global warming is about warmer temps in the city you live. the science predicts record snow falls and more.... check it out


----------



## Dante (Oct 13, 2015)

paulitician said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> > *Record Cold And Snow Destroy Global Warming Claims ...*
> ...


go away. go back posting in the conspiracy forums, you lonely little man


----------



## paulitician (Oct 13, 2015)

Dante said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



Good, you're making progress. Don't live in fear of the Global Warming Boogeyman. He ain't gonna get ya. We're all gonna die. But you're not gonna die from 'Global Warming.' You're gonna die from anything but that. 

All the hysterical fear mongering is absolutely unnecessary. It's what happens when Politicians get involved. We can't get back to real Science if the Politicians are involved. That's the reality.


----------



## paulitician (Oct 13, 2015)

Dante said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > bedowin62 said:
> ...



Careful, the Global Warming Boogeyman gon get ya. BOO!


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 13, 2015)

Misty said:


> "A former climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, with six degrees in applied mathematics, Dr Evans has unpacked the architecture of the basic climate model which underpins all climate science.
> 
> *He has found that, while the underlying physics of the model is correct, it had been applied incorrectly.
> 
> ...


The consensus of why ice ages have come and gone throughout history is earth wobble and solar fluctuations.  Guess what's missing from every climate change computer model.


----------



## paulitician (Oct 13, 2015)

I'm just waiting for the Globalist idiots to start pushing a 'Global Cooling' scam. Because i assure you, that is coming next. But see, at least Global Cooling is a real threat to humanity. There is no evidence showing Global Warming ends life on Earth. In fact, in the warmest temperatures ever recorded, life actually thrived on the Planet. It was incredibly diverse and abundant. More so than today.

However, when it turns cold, life struggles to survive. Not much survives Ice Ages. So at least Global Cooling would be somewhat of a concern. But again, no need to panic. You're gonna die of anything but Global Warming and Global Cooling. So just live and enjoy your short time here. Peace.


----------



## kaz (Oct 13, 2015)

mamooth said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Just so you know, I have two modes.  Serious and fun.  If you want to have a serious discussion, cut the insults.  If you want to have fun we're good.
> ...



So you pick fun, do you, pussy?

I didn't give a shit which you picked, I just wanted you to pick.


----------



## mamooth (Oct 13, 2015)

paulitician said:


> I'm just waiting for the Globalist idiots to start pushing a 'Global Cooling' scam. Because i assure you, that is coming next.



Don't be absurd. The scientists have been predicting warming pretty consistently since ... oh ... 1958, when this Bell Labs film was made, and then shown in middle school science classrooms for the next 30 years.


Remarkable, how good and how consistent the science has been. Remember, just because you'll flipflop whenever the wind blows, don't assume the rational people are like that.

Now, unlike the very consistent and very correct scientists, deniers often try to push a cooling scare. Or a red scare, which is your specialty. Cooling scare, red scare, the consistent thing is how the real world evidence has no effect on denier hysterical fantasies.


----------



## Rustic (Oct 13, 2015)

The fact remains there is no such thing as man made global warming/cooling, algore made it up so him and his "green" lobbyists can get rich. And now they all are, it must've worked. Good for them.

Hashtag chicken little is full of Sh!t


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 13, 2015)

mamooth said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > I'm just waiting for the Globalist idiots to start pushing a 'Global Cooling' scam. Because i assure you, that is coming next.
> ...



It was Global Cooling...the New Ice Age! then snow is a thing of the past Global Warming, then after no warming for 2 decades, er, Climate Change! Yeah, that's the ticket!


----------



## mamooth (Oct 13, 2015)

Rustic said:


> The fact remains there is no such thing as man made global warming/cooling, algore made it up so him and his "green" lobbyists can get rich.



Sp right after I show a movie from 1958 that explained about why global warming was happening, Rustic here still declares Al Gore invented it.

You just can't fix stupid when it's that powerful.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 13, 2015)

paulitician said:


> I'm just waiting for the Globalist idiots to start pushing a 'Global Cooling' scam. Because i assure you, that is coming next. But see, at least Global Cooling is a real threat to humanity. There is no evidence showing Global Warming ends life on Earth. In fact, in the warmest temperatures ever recorded, life actually thrived on the Planet. It was incredibly diverse and abundant. More so than today.
> 
> However, when it turns cold, life struggles to survive. Not much survives Ice Ages. So at least Global Cooling would be somewhat of a concern. But again, no need to panic. You're gonna die of anything but Global Warming and Global Cooling. So just live and enjoy your short time here. Peace.


Been there done that: 1974 the leftards were pushing we were headed into another ice age unless we acted now.  Maybe we overreacted?
Another Ice Age?


----------



## paulitician (Oct 13, 2015)

mamooth said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > I'm just waiting for the Globalist idiots to start pushing a 'Global Cooling' scam. Because i assure you, that is coming next.
> ...



I don't fear Global Warming or Global Cooling. We'll survive... or we won't. The hysterical fear mongering isn't unnecessary. Just enjoy each day here like it's your last.


----------



## paulitician (Oct 13, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



Yeah, and there's no evidence supporting the idea that life can't survive when the Planet warms. In fact, the evidence supports the exact opposite. The Planet has actually been much warmer in the past. And during those periods, animal and plant life thrived. It was incredibly diverse and abundant. But if you are the type that's inclined to live in fear, Global Cooling could be of some concern. Animals and plants don't do well in extreme cold climates. Not much thrives during Ice Ages.

But like i said before, there's no need to fear Global Warming or Global Cooling. Climate Change is just being used to scare people into supporting political agendas. Politics has now invaded Science. And that's very sad. But I would just advise people to live life to the fullest. We're only here a short time. Don't waste that time living in fear.


----------



## paulitician (Oct 13, 2015)

Weatherman2020 said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > I'm just waiting for the Globalist idiots to start pushing a 'Global Cooling' scam. Because i assure you, that is coming next. But see, at least Global Cooling is a real threat to humanity. There is no evidence showing Global Warming ends life on Earth. In fact, in the warmest temperatures ever recorded, life actually thrived on the Planet. It was incredibly diverse and abundant. More so than today.
> ...



Ha, maybe? There's no need to fear either. Climate Change is being used to scare the People. Frightened people tend to go along with whatever their leaders tell them will save them. Many are willing to give up their Freedom & Liberty in the belief that the One World Government will save them from the Global Warming Boogeyman.

It's that kind of fear that has allowed our Government to implement Nazi decrees like the Patriot Act and NDAA. The People can become so afraid, they're willing to give up all their rights in order to be 'safe.' Fear is a very old and successful tactic used to get the People to go along. Just choose to not live in fear. Keep your Freedom & Liberty, and take your chances with the Global Warming Boogeyman.


----------



## mamooth (Oct 14, 2015)

paulitician said:


> Yeah, and there's no evidence supporting the idea that life can't survive when the Planet warms.



So why do so many deniers think life can't survive when the planet warms? After all, you only see that crazy story from deniers. None of the rational people have ever said or implied such a bizarre thing.

Now, the rational people do point out that when the human population and all of its agriculture has evolved around a specific climate pattern, changing that climate quickly will have significant negative consequences. It's not an era of hunter-gatherers any more, who can simply move to a new spot. All the land on earth is already claimed. You can't pack up and move billions of people to wherever the more fertile spot might be. Think of the current Syrian crisis, times a thousand. Nobody wants refugees.


----------



## mamooth (Oct 14, 2015)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Been there done that: 1974 the leftards were pushing we were headed into another ice age unless we acted now.  Maybe we overreacted?
> Another Ice Age?



That's one of cult myths of the deniers, but back in reality, scientists have been consistently predicting warming for a very long time. Deniers, not having any science on their side, are reduced to pointing to some Time Magazine article.







It's the deniers who now make "cooling is imminent!" hysteria one of their staple tactics. Given how the deniers have been failing with their ice age predictions for so many years, why should anyone pay attention to them now?


----------



## kaz (Oct 14, 2015)

mamooth said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, and there's no evidence supporting the idea that life can't survive when the Planet warms.
> ...



To you a "denier" isn't anyone who isn't a propaganda swilling leftist.  You don't even require anyone to "deny" to be a "denier."  Just not being willing to set yourself on fire in Lafayette Park to get the President to send trillions to poor countries to solve global warming is enough.

I like how you leftists are so rabidly extreme, then you say you're smarter than Republicans because you aren't all black and white like they are when you're Republican black and white squared


----------



## paulitician (Oct 14, 2015)

mamooth said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, and there's no evidence supporting the idea that life can't survive when the Planet warms.
> ...



Animals and plant life thrive in warm climates. The historical climate record shows that. So if gets warmer, we'll survive. Now if you wanna start fear mongering over 'Global Cooling, i might entertain that for a bit. Animals and plant life struggle in extreme cold climates. Not much can thrive in Ice Ages.

But regardless, it's all hysterical fear mongering at this point. An effort to scare the People into going along with a particular political agenda. Fear is an old successful tactic used to convince the People to go along. It's how our Government was able to implement Nazi decrees like the Patriot Act and NDAA. My advice would be to not live in fear. You're gonna die from something, but it won't be from Global Warming/Global Cooling. So just live and enjoy your short time here. Peace.


----------



## paulitician (Oct 14, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Been there done that: 1974 the leftards were pushing we were headed into another ice age unless we acted now.  Maybe we overreacted?
> ...



All irrelevant. Once the Politicians got involved, the Science became suspect. Politics has invaded the realm of Science. Whether pushing warming or cooling, it's all unnecessary fear mongering.

More CO2 and warming will not end human civilization. In fact, a lush tropical climate has been proven to be ideal for animal and plant life. There is no Global Warming Boogeyman to slay. So... bring on the warmth!


----------



## amrchaos (Oct 14, 2015)

6 degrees in applied mathematics.

You only need applied Real Analysis at the PH.D level and every things covered. Why did he waste his time obtaining 6 degrees?


Something is not right with this person.  Wait, is he a doctor?


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Oct 14, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



ha ha ha... Yeah, I know, you AGW cultists are a bunch of geniuses... you tell us daily.  I'm old enough tio have been hearing this tired old "we're gonna die in ten years if we don't do (fill in the blank)"

They're yet to be correct.  This planet is 4.5 billion years old.... when it is done with us, it will shrug us off like so much dust.


----------



## BlindBoo (Oct 14, 2015)

bedowin62 said:


> *Record Cold And Snow Destroy Global Warming Claims ...*
> www.forbes.com/.../cold-and-snow-destroy-*global*-*warming*-claim...
> 
> Cached
> ...



It has been a topsy-turvy winter for much of the contiguous United States.  The divide between record warmest and much below-average could not be any more stark. In the eastern US, for the entire winter, average temperatures were amongst the coldest third of all years back to 1895. And along with the cold came record-breaking snow across New England.

On the flip side, California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona and Washington observed their warmest winters on record (which goes back 120 years) while Oregon, Idaho and Wyoming observed winter in the top three. But let’s not stop there; the warm conditions extended across the far north too as Alaska experienced a second consecutive warm winter.

“Winter” in Alaska | NOAA Climate.gov


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Oct 14, 2015)

amrchaos said:


> 6 degrees in applied mathematics.
> 
> You only need applied Real Analysis at the PH.D level and every things covered. Why did he waste his time obtaining 6 degrees?
> 
> ...



So, wait, now the "pro education", "pro science" bunch is whining about _too many_ degrees?

You people are nuts.


----------



## bedowin62 (Oct 14, 2015)

the same morons that want to lecture others on the difference between weather and climate cite records that go "back 120 years" on a planet that is billions of years old.


----------



## amrchaos (Oct 14, 2015)

Misty said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > There have already been two threads in the Environment folder where this got laughed at. But I get it, when conservatives get their marching orders, they all rush to obey.
> ...



6 math degrees is a red light!!  It does not mean he is more intelligent than someone with one degree in mathematics, it means there is something screwy with the person in question.

One PH.D in Mathematics is all you need.  You can switch your focus from your dissertation, the PH.D signifies you can teach yourself materials in the field.

Hence, why is this guy claiming 6 degrees in mathematics.  Something is screwy here.(Yes, it is possible.  But it is also a waste of time!)


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Oct 14, 2015)

bedowin62 said:


> the same morons that want to lecture others on the difference between weather and climate cite records that go "back 120 years" on a planet that is billions of years old.



Yeah, that's what, 0.00000266667?  Yeah, there's a trend for you.


----------



## amrchaos (Oct 14, 2015)

gtopa1 said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



It looks like two different data sets to me.  Are they suppose to be from the same location?  Or are they _averages_?


----------



## amrchaos (Oct 14, 2015)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> > 6 degrees in applied mathematics.
> ...



If they were from different fields(Like history, Law, philosophy, Physics...) but they are all concentrated in mathematics!!

There is something screwy with such a claim.  It is a red light.  6 associate degrees--you should have tried for the PH.D.  6 higher degrees like Bachelor or Masters, then you are living in Academia.


Let me put it another way--You are basically relearning the same things, over and over again.


----------



## paulitician (Oct 14, 2015)

One thing you learn in all this, is that human beings are fascinated, and obsessed with End-Times and death. They're consumed with the harsh reality of mortality. Whether it's religious zealots, zombie apocalypse zealots, or Global Warming zealots, they all have that in common. 

They're obsessed with their eventual demise. There has to be an impending doom to fear. They take some sort of comfort in believing they know how it's gonna end for em. I guess it's the human condition. The sad inevitability of the end.


----------



## BlindBoo (Oct 14, 2015)

Weatherman2020 said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > I'm just waiting for the Globalist idiots to start pushing a 'Global Cooling' scam. Because i assure you, that is coming next. But see, at least Global Cooling is a real threat to humanity. There is no evidence showing Global Warming ends life on Earth. In fact, in the warmest temperatures ever recorded, life actually thrived on the Planet. It was incredibly diverse and abundant. More so than today.
> ...



Awww, it's that cute global cooling myth again that was debunked last decade.

An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie


----------



## paulitician (Oct 14, 2015)

BlindBoo said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



Actually, many currently believe the earth is about to enter a cooling cycle. But regardless, Global Warming/Global Cooling? We'll survive... Or we won't.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 14, 2015)

amrchaos said:


> 6 degrees in applied mathematics.
> 
> You only need applied Real Analysis at the PH.D level and every things covered. Why did he waste his time obtaining 6 degrees?
> 
> ...


6 degrees in mathematics tells me this is a person afraid to move out of moms basement and start contributing to society and earn a living.


----------



## amrchaos (Oct 14, 2015)

Weatherman2020 said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> > 6 degrees in applied mathematics.
> ...



found it!!

David Evans

* David Evans*
* Credentials*

Ph.D. Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
M.S. Electrical Engineering, Stanford University.
M.S. Statistics, Stanford University.
M.A. Applied Mathematics, University Of Sydney.
B.E. Electrical Engineering, University Of Sydney, Sydney Australia, University Medal (1983).
B.Sc. Applied Mathematics and Physics, University Of Sydn




He has 3 degrees in applied Mathematic, with his highest degree in Electrical Engineering!  The math degrees can be considered side interests and his real focus is Engineering.

The Doctorates from Stanford is the underlining point of his education.  You can assume basic knowledge of Stats and most applied Mathematics as well as Physics due to the PH.D.


----------



## IanC (Oct 14, 2015)

Credentials only matter if you are agreeing with the consensus position. Just ask Crick and Old Rocks.


----------



## Misty (Oct 14, 2015)

mamooth said:


> There have already been two threads in the Environment folder where this got laughed at. But I get it, when conservatives get their marching orders, they all rush to obey.
> 
> Evans is a clown who botched the math and physics. However, you won't be able to convince a denier of that, being their faith in their conspiracy theory is unshakable. According to them, the last 3 centuries of math and physics are all wrong, overturned by an electrical engineer political fanatic. Yeah, that's probably it.
> 
> If Evans isn't a clown, he merely needs to use his theory to make climate predictions, and show those predictions come true. Mainstream climate science has been getting everything right for decades, which is why it has such credibility. Of course, like every other denier, Evans won't have the guts to put his credibility on the line by making predictions, or to submit his work to peer review.


79 out of 300O scientists is what libs think is a consensus. Do you not get it yet?  You've been lied to again by your government.


----------



## Misty (Oct 14, 2015)

Dante said:


> Misty said:
> 
> 
> > "A former climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, with six degrees in applied mathematics, Dr Evans has unpacked the architecture of the basic climate model which underpins all climate science.
> ...


Try reading the Wall Street journal.


----------



## Misty (Oct 14, 2015)

The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make."

The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'


----------



## Dante (Oct 14, 2015)

Misty said:


> I'm not a climate scientists. I'm a skeptic. And I can see that our country is using climate change to take away freedoms and to sell green energy.


Are you a skeptic by nature or nurture, by nurture being your ideology?

Why would _our_ country have to use _climate change_ if they desired taking away freedoms in order to sell green energy or anything else? This is a very convoluted and extra difficult road to take. and btw, by our country, do you mean our government, a majority or minority of the people?  you do sound more like a crank than a skeptic

just sayin


----------



## Dante (Oct 14, 2015)

Misty said:


> Just because it's science does not ever mean it's truth.


I bet you think that statement actually means something


----------



## Dante (Oct 14, 2015)

Misty said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Misty said:
> ...


are they climate scientists?
Dante has never gone against differing opinions on global warming. Going against the science is NOT an opinion, it is a reaction. There are a few opinions on how to deal with global warming. Those are legitimate and valuable battles. But when you post like a crank and deny the facts it leaves you being viewed as a nut job

Dante posted links to science Exxon has funded on global warming


----------



## Dante (Oct 14, 2015)

Misty said:


> my2¢ said:
> 
> 
> > He's predicting temperatures to start cooling down in 2017 and we'll have a mini-ice age by 2030.  If we see  temperatures stagnate until 2017 as he says then others will be forced to sit up and listen.  Otherwise, his credibility is out the window.
> ...


The temperature of the planet has gotten warmer


----------



## Dante (Oct 14, 2015)

kaz said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


be honest stand your ground. you're more of an ideologue than a seeker of facts and truth. you'd at the least get some respect that way


----------



## Dante (Oct 14, 2015)

gtopa1 said:


> Nonsense. You "end of worlders" are a bloody cult...


Dante has never been an alarmist

please pay attention or go away .. crawl back under your rock


----------



## Dante (Oct 14, 2015)

gtopa1 said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


your sexual fantasy life is truly one that should be kept off of the boards


----------



## gtopa1 (Oct 14, 2015)

Dante said:


> Misty said:
> 
> 
> > Just because it's science does not ever mean it's truth.
> ...



To a scientist it means much indeed. Glad you are showing your ignorance!! 

The Zimmermann/Dorian "Consensus" survey is a joke!! You KNOW it and continue the lie!

The REAL cause of Global Warming!!!






Stupid!

Greg


----------



## Dante (Oct 14, 2015)

Misty said:


> Try reading the Wall Street journal.


WSJ Editorial Page under John Fund used to push the _Vince Foster may have been murdered by the Clinton_s meme

The wsj news pages are linked to from many of Dante's posts. Ask for a clue when you you get your new life


----------



## gtopa1 (Oct 14, 2015)

This survey was somewhat more useful. 



> *Farnsworth and Lichter, 2011*
> In an October 2011 paper published in the _International Journal of Public Opinion Research_, researchers from George Mason University analyzed the results of a survey of 998 scientists working in academia, government, and industry. The scientists polled were members of the American Geophysical Union or the American Meteorological Society and listed in the 23rd edition of American Men and Women of Science, a biographical reference work on leading American scientists, and 489 returned completed questionnaires. Of those who replied, 97% agreed that global temperatures have risen over the past century. 84% agreed that "human-induced greenhouse warming is now occurring," 5% disagreed, and 12% didn't know.[21][22]
> 
> When asked "What do you think is the % probability of human-induced global warming raising global average temperatures by two degrees Celsius or more during the next 50 to 100 years?’’: 19% of respondents answered less than 50% probability, 56% said over 50%, and 26% didn't know.[22]
> ...



Surveys of scientists' views on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NOT 97% at all you dolt!! 57% said they thought "trivial to moderate".....and I am with the trivial. I am looking forward to a longer hill walking season in the Lakes District quite frankly but I am not going to be too disappointed if I don't get to see it. 

Greg


----------



## gtopa1 (Oct 14, 2015)

Dante said:


> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



You're the one confusing shit and ice-cram, you drongo!! lmao

Greg


----------



## BlindBoo (Oct 14, 2015)

paulitician said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



No not really.  Most believe we have just started the interglacial period which will last for thousands of years.

Adapt or die.


----------



## gtopa1 (Oct 14, 2015)

amrchaos said:


> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



They are the SAME data sets only the originals have been "adjusted" by Hansen to show the early part of the century to be cooler than it was and the latter part warmer thus giving a "warming" trend. There is much discussion about why the adjustments were applied. My guess is to make the data fit the theory.....sorta wrong way round. 

Greg


----------



## gtopa1 (Oct 14, 2015)

BlindBoo said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



Point of information: Prof Ian Lowe was DEFINITELY pushing the Global Cooling myth at the time. I know because I attended his lectures. He is NOW a major local AGW alarmist. He was always a left wing nutter. As such he is much beloved by the "anti-USA Capitalist pigs" crowd. He worked his way up through the anti-Nuclear movement. Frankly he's a conman. The established Science hierarchy regarded him with disdain!!

Greg


----------



## gtopa1 (Oct 14, 2015)

paulitician said:


> One thing you learn in all this, is that human beings are fascinated, and obsessed with End-Times and death. They're consumed with the harsh reality of mortality. Whether it's religious zealots, zombie apocalypse zealots, or Global Warming zealots, they all have that in common.
> 
> They're obsessed with their eventual demise. There has to be an impending doom to fear. They take some sort of comfort in believing they know how it's gonna end for em. I guess it's the human condition. The sad inevitability of the end.



Well some may be. Personally I'm with the "you know not the hour" mob.

Greg


----------



## Misty (Oct 14, 2015)

Dante said:


> Misty said:
> 
> 
> > Try reading the Wall Street journal.
> ...


There are many articles that prove this is a scam. You can diss my sources all you want but your government is lying to you.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 14, 2015)

Dante said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Misty said:
> ...



Climate science, as it stands today IS ideology and political biased crap as evidenced by the 126 non-empirical (fantasy) models that have been produced and have ALL FAILED.. They have NO PREDICTIVE POWER. 

The proof is in the output of these people and the claims of  doom unsupported by any real facts or empirical evidence.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 14, 2015)

Dante said:


> Misty said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



Jump to adhominems and personal attacks.. Then you run to "authority" and your too stupid to know.....  what a load of crap.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 14, 2015)

Dante said:


> So a guy with degrees in math goes on his wife's blog, and he's your credible climate scientist, yet most every single climate scientist in the world agree with the globe has warmed and man has something to do with it?
> 
> Okay -- and you and your blogger know more about the science than NASA does NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming



Dr Evens is highly respected in his field.. He is also very well versed in statistical evaluation of mathematical models...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 14, 2015)

Dante said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > But the science is settled!
> ...



No school age child under the age 18 has see ANY GLOBAL WARMING...




If we run a linear regression with today as the start date going backwards it has been 18 years 8 months since the globe warmed.






Source


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 14, 2015)

Flopper said:


> Misty said:
> 
> 
> > "A former climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, with six degrees in applied mathematics, Dr Evans has unpacked the architecture of the basic climate model which underpins all climate science.
> ...



You have got to be kidding... Skeptical Science???  WTF.. those liars....??.  Nuttercellie and Cook are pair of left wing liars and they wont stop. They will resort to defamation of ethical scientists.  Talk about a lack of credibility...


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 14, 2015)

BlindBoo said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



Check your smart-watch. This interglacial is already longer than 2 of the previous three.. Time's a'wasting. 
Good news is -- spewing A LOT of CO2 might just help a few people in the higher latitudes survive the next glacial period..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 14, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...











 
Dag Namit... Westwall is right...!!!  AGAIN!


----------



## Dante (Oct 14, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...


I can imagine you in the 1960s "We can't land a man on the moon!" Christ, those rockets failed during testing.

You are certainly coming from an ideological perspective. I know of no doomsday predictions. You are using news headlines (remember how many cures for AIDS there have been and end of the world Ebola scenarios   ) and scenarios that have been proposed that say things like "If nothing is done..."  well no one with any credibility (including Exxon: see Dante's links ) has been advocating doing nothing. Because the science says the Earth has warmed. The science also suggests humans are playing a part in it.

the consensus is built around the science, not the science around the consensus


----------



## Dante (Oct 14, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


another idiot with dueling graphs?

NASA and NOAA say the Earth has warmed up. They also say humans are playing a part in that.
Authority? Nah, experts and scientific evidence


----------



## Dante (Oct 14, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...


Oh look!  more stupid graphs.

you're not a climate scientist. you're an anonymous loser on a web based message board


----------



## Dante (Oct 14, 2015)

Misty said:


> There are many articles that prove this is a scam. You can diss my sources all you want but your government is lying to you.


prove?
that is  nuts


----------



## Dante (Oct 14, 2015)

there is a consensus on what the science says

most all the attacks here have been ideological ones.


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 14, 2015)

Dante said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



Didn't understand a word of that. But I suppose you're denying the MULTITUDE of doomsday predictions associated with catastrophic GW..


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 14, 2015)

Dante said:


> there is a consensus on what the science says
> 
> most all the attacks here have been ideological ones.



Really? What was the consensus on the temperature anomaly expected in 2100 when the IPCC conferences first started and what it is NOW? All of this hysteria has been revised drastically downward since Al Gore played on everyone's fears. There are several in-depth polls where climate scientists were actually ASKED meaningful questions about GW --- and they show NO overwhelming confidence in the predictions, the modeling or even the assessment of past temperature histories of the planet. 

Unlike the infamous 97% "poll" that wasn't a poll at all, but a bunch of activist former cartoonists reading abstracts and miscounting the number of the papers that said the earth was warming. 

It's MORONIC to claim a 97% consensus unless there's only ONE QUESTION that needs to be answered. And the issue of GW has MANY questions.. On the IMPORTANT ones -- there is no consensus.


----------



## Dante (Oct 14, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


Dante has never followed doomsday scenarios. Predictions layered with 'if we do nothing' and 'if nothing changes' always struck me as warnings and alerts rather than alarmist cries of 'the end is near'

Dante does not do conspiracy shit. Funny thing is Dante listens to Coast to Coast quite often. 
Know thy opponent and watch and learn

you cannot grasp a simple truth: the consensus is built around the science, not the science around the consensus?  poor you, poor you, pour you a strong drink


----------



## Dante (Oct 14, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > there is a consensus on what the science says
> ...



I didn't know scientists stating _expected temps_ were a concrete thing. We must have different understandings of the word 'expected'

predictions of temps in 2100? Why are you hung up on that? Dante has said the globe has warmed. No credible scientist disputes this. Not the scientists hired by Exxon and others. What they differ on is what it means to business and other bottom line issues .  then there are people like you with ideological based attacks looking around for parts of an overall design as if to say 'look here! a loose screw. the machine will not ever work'  

Dante grew up outside of the airport. Things fall off of planes ALL the time, yet the planes still fly


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 14, 2015)

Dante said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



Oh look... another retard who has no scientific knowledge, demanding we think like his moronic ass and shove our heads where he has his..

Prove you assertions ass hole!  Produce the math, methods and data so that we can see how you came to your fantasy land conclusions..

You must be a Crick clone..  you cant seem to read graphs or figure out how they were sourced so you just jump right to adhoms and disparagement because you can not refute the facts they represent.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 14, 2015)

Bottom line is the optimum earth climate is much warmer than it is today.  Dinosaurs didn't get to the size of freight trains without plenty to eat.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 14, 2015)

Dante said:


> there is a consensus on what the science says
> 
> most all the attacks here have been ideological ones.



Two words for the Moronic dip shit....

BULL SHIT!!!

First of all CONSENSUS is POLITICAL and has NOTHING to do with science.  History proves that each time a "consensus" has been reached it has been WRONG!
One of those earth is flat, sun revolves around the earth, things....


----------



## nat4900 (Oct 14, 2015)

Misty said:


> CO2 is not causing global warming.



*Climate Change and the Media*

According to a poll done by WorldPublicOpinion.org (WPO) after the 2010 election, 45% of voting Americans think that most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring. WPO goes on further to estimate that this percentage has actually increased over the past ten years. A recent Pew study found that an overwhelming majority of Americans like science, have a positive regard for scientists, and think that science "contributes a lot to society's well-being." So if there's obvious consensus among scientists, why is that information not making it to the public?

 Of people who responded that they agree with the statement "most scientists believe that global warming is not occurring," 60% watch Fox News almost every day. (Source)
The average American learns about climate science from the media, and which media source you choose could influence your understanding of the facts. Unfortunately, when the media covers climate change science, it usually frames the science as a debate in order to present "balanced" news to the viewers. But the debate among climate scientists has long been over. Pitting a climate scientist and a climate "contrarian" (who's usually not a scientist at all) against one another makes it appear this is a 50/50 struggle between fact and fiction, when in reality, *97% of climate scientists agree that global temperatures are rising and human activity is to blame.* Whereas in political discourse the method of giving two opposing sides equal coverage is valid, in science there is an objective truth. To present science as a subjective debate is misleading.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 14, 2015)

nat4900 said:


> Misty said:
> 
> 
> > CO2 is not causing global warming.
> ...



Another one who thinks the debate is over..  And you would be wrong..


----------



## nat4900 (Oct 14, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Another one who thinks the debate is over.. And you would be wrong..




Science is NOT subjective.......The debate is LONG over...

Some right wingers would argue about the existence of gravity if Sean Hannity tells them to.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 14, 2015)

nat4900 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Another one who thinks the debate is over.. And you would be wrong..
> ...


To say debating science is over simply shows how anti-science the sheep are.


----------



## kaz (Oct 14, 2015)

Dante said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



I am an "ideologue" who thinks global warming who just thinks global warming is unproven.  I want more facts either way rather than knee jerk believing theory with endless holes and no predictive capability as fact.  You think an ideologue is someone with an open mind.

This word Dante is using, "ideologue," I do not think it means what he thinks it means...


----------



## kaz (Oct 14, 2015)

nat4900 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Another one who thinks the debate is over.. And you would be wrong..
> ...



What a dumb ass


----------



## kaz (Oct 14, 2015)

Dante said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



Landing a man on the moon wasn't politically motivated.  The global warming crowd wants socialism, and global warming is a justification to get it.  You aren't giving it up


----------



## kaz (Oct 14, 2015)

Dante said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



Dante needs to watch "An Inconvenient Truth" so he knows what is being discussed


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 14, 2015)

Dante said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



Wouldn't be discussing the topic at all if the EXPECTED temp. anomaly in 2100 was all consensus up to be another 1degC. There's no story to that. When this circus came to town 30 years ago, Hansen was out there prodding the media with predictions of 5 or 6degC by 2100. And boiling oceans and killer weather and major cities underwater by 2020 or so.. It's all been exaggerated from the lead activist scientists. AND NOW --- there's some sanity settling in and all that is being RAPIDLY walked back in the last 5 years or so. 

Got to say that if you continue to do this Dante says biz -- I'm gonna be too creeped out to even read your posts. 
FlaCalTenn is just sayin"...         Coast to Coast eh?


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 14, 2015)

nat4900 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Another one who thinks the debate is over.. And you would be wrong..
> ...



The debate about WHAT?? What is the fucking question you believe to be resolved? You know how high the ocean is gonna be by 2100? You know how much hotter it's gonna be in 2100? You know what the major power sources will be 2060?      Bullshit.     If you can't answer those questions -- what is this "consensus" about? 

What kind of public policy could be based on a consensus -- unless you're certain of being able to predict those things?


----------



## Dante (Oct 15, 2015)

kaz said:


> Landing a man on the moon wasn't politically motivated.  The global warming crowd wants socialism, and global warming is a justification to get it.  You aren't giving it up


Sputnik


----------



## kaz (Oct 15, 2015)

Dante said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > Landing a man on the moon wasn't politically motivated.  The global warming crowd wants socialism, and global warming is a justification to get it.  You aren't giving it up
> ...



Non-sequitur, I was referring to internal American politics, both partied were on the same side


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 15, 2015)

nat4900 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Another one who thinks the debate is over.. And you would be wrong..
> ...



The left wit fool has drank the kookaid too long.. Your being biasedly subjective to your religion.  I on the other hand know the real questions have not been answered with REAL SCIENCE!

Tell me, why have all of your models failed?  Why do you need to adjust them empirical evidence so that it meets you failed models?  There used to be a time in real science when a model failed that we looked at the models and the reason it failed, Now you guys just change the empirical data to "meet expectations".. who is fucking lying out their asses?

Political Pseudoscience s all climate science is today.


----------



## paulitician (Oct 15, 2015)

BlindBoo said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



Bring on the warmth. I can handle it. I ain't afraid of no Global Warming Boogeyman.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 15, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



So, when a model is found to be out, they change the model. Then you say that in the past when a model failed, they looked at why it failed and changed it. But now they just look at a model, ask why it's wrong and change it.

Er..... do you not see what's wrong with what you're saying?


----------



## paulitician (Oct 15, 2015)

gtopa1 said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



Good point. Most pushing the Global Warming fear mongering are Leftist Globalists. There's some interesting books out there on how when Communism collapsed, many on the Left gave up and shifted focus to environmental fanaticism. 

They later formed the 'Global Warming' cult. Just look at who's doing the fear mongering. It shouldn't take long to realize it's usually Left/Communist extremists.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 15, 2015)

paulitician said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



Until it starts killing too many people, then....


----------



## paulitician (Oct 15, 2015)

gtopa1 said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > One thing you learn in all this, is that human beings are fascinated, and obsessed with End-Times and death. They're consumed with the harsh reality of mortality. Whether it's religious zealots, zombie apocalypse zealots, or Global Warming zealots, they all have that in common.
> ...



For many, it's comforting believing they know how it's all gonna end. Most humans need an impending doom to fear. They're both frightened and fascinated with their inevitable demise. The harsh reality is, they're not gonna die from Global Warming or Global Cooling. They're gonna die from anything but that. Such is the human condition i guess.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 15, 2015)

nat4900 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Another one who thinks the debate is over.. And you would be wrong..
> ...


From Albert Einstein:

"Even Albert agrees:
_He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice.
Albert Einstein"_


----------



## paulitician (Oct 15, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



Animal and plant life have always thrived during times of high CO2 levels and warm climates. Lush tropical climates are perfect for life. It's only when climates turn cold & dry, that life struggles to survive. 'Global Warming' will not spell the end of humanity. In fact, humanity will likely thrive.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 15, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...


until what does that?  Let's see some evidence of something you fear here.


----------



## paulitician (Oct 15, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



People die all the time. That's never gonna change. But the historical climate evidence shows that animal and plant life thrive during times of high CO2 levels and warm climates. So humanity isn't doomed. 

Now, extreme cold climates are another story. Animal and plant life don't do very well in those climates. So, when the 'Global Cooling' fear mongering begins, it would be somewhat reasonable to be concerned. Humans don't like harsh cold climates.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 15, 2015)

paulitician said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...


well perhaps the dude could actually post up some evidence of global warming deaths. But those facts are not in evidence, because............there is none.


----------



## paulitician (Oct 15, 2015)

jc456 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



It's fear. Humans seem to enjoy being afraid.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 15, 2015)

paulitician said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


socialists I guess.


----------



## paulitician (Oct 15, 2015)

jc456 said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



The historical climate evidence doesn't support the belief that high CO2 levels and warm climates spell the end for life. In fact, it supports the exact opposite.


----------



## nat4900 (Oct 15, 2015)

You moronic right wingers actually thrive on belittling science.....There is NO argument amount our changing weather patterns; you'd rather believe some lone dissenter than the 99% of scientists who have and will continue to warn us of the impending dangers......Sure, your sorry asses won't be around to see the devastation, but your great grand kids will....and will curse your souls for it.

The turmoil in many parts of Africa AND the civil war in Syria initially began because of global warming.....

If the impending devastation were to happen tomorrow (which won't happen), you morons would be the first claiming that you did NOT EVER doubt that it would happen. Such is the nature of morons.


----------



## paulitician (Oct 15, 2015)

Dante said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Ha, and you're not?


----------



## paulitician (Oct 15, 2015)

nat4900 said:


> You moronic right wingers actually thrive on belittling science.....There is NO argument amount our changing weather patterns; you'd rather believe some lone dissenter than the 99% of scientists who have and will continue to warn us of the impending dangers......Sure, your sorry asses won't be around to see the devastation, but your great grand kids will....and will curse your souls for it.
> 
> The turmoil in many parts of Africa AND the civil war in Syria initially began because of global warming.....
> 
> If the impending devastation were to happen tomorrow (which won't happen), you morons would be the first claiming that you did NOT EVER doubt that it would happen. Such is the nature of morons.



High CO2 levels and warm climates are actually ideal for animal and plant life. The historical climate record shows that. We'll survive some warming. Seriously, we will.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 15, 2015)

nat4900 said:


> You moronic right wingers actually thrive on belittling science.....There is NO argument amount our changing weather patterns; you'd rather believe some lone dissenter than the 99% of scientists who have and will continue to warn us of the impending dangers......Sure, your sorry asses won't be around to see the devastation, but your great grand kids will....and will curse your souls for it.
> 
> The turmoil in many parts of Africa AND the civil war in Syria initially began because of global warming.....
> 
> If the impending devastation were to happen tomorrow (which won't happen), you morons would be the first claiming that you did NOT EVER doubt that it would happen. Such is the nature of morons.


Yeah, never was violence in the Middle East or Africa until Gorebal Warming.
Ignorant moron.


----------



## paulitician (Oct 15, 2015)

Most humans seem to enjoy living in fear of their imagined Doomsday scenarios. Whether it's religious zealots, zombie apocalypse zealots, or Global Warming zealots. They all have that in common. And usually there's an agenda behind what they're pushing as well. 

The reality is, the Global Warming Boogeyman ain't gonna get you. You're much more likely to die of cancer or get hit by a bus. But one thing's for sure, you're gonna die. Just accept that and quit living in fear of Boogeymen. Live life to the fullest. You're not gonna be here long. Don't waste another day living in fear.


----------



## nat4900 (Oct 15, 2015)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Yeah, never was violence in the Middle East or Africa until Gorebal Warming.
> Ignorant moron.



NO, idiot......I'm not referring to the violence as much as I am referring to the MASS MIGRATIONS...
(is there a grown up in your basement to help you understand?)


----------



## paulitician (Oct 15, 2015)

nat4900 said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, never was violence in the Middle East or Africa until Gorebal Warming.
> ...



Are you suggesting 'Global Warming' is the reason people are choosing to flee the Middle East? I'm not following.


----------



## nat4900 (Oct 15, 2015)

paulitician said:


> Are you suggesting 'Global Warming' is the reason people are choosing to leave he Middle East? I'm not following.



[The} drought — combined with the mismanagement of natural resources by [Syrian President Bashar] Assad, who subsidized water-intensive crops like wheat and cotton farming and promoted bad irrigation techniques — led to significant devastation. According to updated numbers, the drought displaced 1.5 million people within Syria..........a massive internal migration was happening, mainly on the periphery, from farmers and herders who had lost their livelihoods completely. Around 75 percent of farmers suffered total crop failure, so they moved into the cities. Farmers in the northeast lost 80 percent of their livestock, so they had to leave and find livelihoods elsewhere. They all moved into urban areas — urban areas that were already experiencing economic insecurity due to an influx of Iraqi and Palestinian refugees. But this massive displacement mostly wasn't reported. So it wasn't factoring into various security analyses. 
Drought helped cause Syria’s war. Will climate change bring more like it?

*Even as Europe wrestles over how to absorb the migrant tide, experts warn that the flood is likely to get worse as climate change becomes a driving factor.*
How Climate Change is Behind the Surge of Migrants to Europe

Drawing one of the strongest links yet between global warming and human conflict, researchers said Monday that an extreme drought in Syria between 2006 and 2009 was most likely due to climate change, and that the drought was a factor in the violent uprising that began there in 2011.

The drought was the worst in the country in modern times, and in a study published Monday in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the scientists laid the blame for it on a century-long trend toward warmer and drier conditions in the Eastern Mediterranean, rather than on natural climate variability...

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/s...o-drought-caused-by-climate-change.html?_r=0#


----------



## paulitician (Oct 15, 2015)

nat4900 said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > Are you suggesting 'Global Warming' is the reason people are choosing to leave he Middle East? I'm not following.
> ...



No offense, but that's a bizarre stretch at best. And there's no real scientific evidence showing 'Global Warming' has caused any droughts. Some are pushing that claim, but there's no real scientific proof to back it. Droughts have existed on earth forever, during periods of warming and cooling.


----------



## IanC (Oct 15, 2015)

paulitician said:


> Most humans seem to enjoy living in fear of their imagined Doomsday scenarios. Whether it's religious zealots, zombie apocalypse zealots, or Global Warming zealots. They all have that in common. And usually there's an agenda behind what they're pushing as well.
> 
> The reality is, the Global Warming Boogeyman ain't gonna get you. You're much more likely to die of cancer or get hit by a bus. But one thing's for sure, you're gonna die. Just accept that and quit living in fear of Boogeymen. Live life to the fullest. You're not gonna be here long. Don't waste another day living in fear.




people would prefer to think themselves important, even in a negative connotation, rather than be insignificant.  global warming gives them the chance to be important again, with opportunities to repent and sacrifice, and so receive the blessings of the tribe.

this of course goes against the grain of science, which has been putting mankind further and further away from the centre of the universe for a very long time.


----------



## paulitician (Oct 15, 2015)

IanC said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > Most humans seem to enjoy living in fear of their imagined Doomsday scenarios. Whether it's religious zealots, zombie apocalypse zealots, or Global Warming zealots. They all have that in common. And usually there's an agenda behind what they're pushing as well.
> ...



Well said. Wise observation.


----------



## nat4900 (Oct 15, 2015)

Well, my right wing friends, I'd guess that for you, denial is the best coping mechanism.

Based MORE on politics, you're willing to defy 99% of the scientific world-wide community, than to accept the fact that your opposite party is raising the alarm.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 15, 2015)

nat4900 said:


> Well, my right wing friends, I'd guess that for you, denial is the best coping mechanism.
> 
> Based MORE on politics, you're willing to defy 99% of the scientific world-wide community, than to accept the fact that your opposite party is raising the alarm.


why do you need me to believe you?  
What is it you lack that you can't see we don't see it as you? 
And that 99% number, you have no idea what it actually means or you wouldn't bother posting it.

See I give two shites what you believe.  Just leave the tax money alone.  Ok?  Can we agree on that?


----------



## paulitician (Oct 15, 2015)

nat4900 said:


> Well, my right wing friends, I'd guess that for you, denial is the best coping mechanism.
> 
> Based MORE on politics, you're willing to defy 99% of the scientific world-wide community, than to accept the fact that your opposite party is raising the alarm.



What's to defy? The climate changes. No one's denying that. But does it spell the end of humanity? Of course not. It's hysterical fear mongering being used to scare the People into supporting a particular political agenda. 

We'll survive and thrive in a warm climate. The historical climate record shows that life always thrives in warm climates. We'll make it. So rest easy, there will be no 'Global Warming' apocalypse.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 15, 2015)

paulitician said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> > Well, my right wing friends, I'd guess that for you, denial is the best coping mechanism.
> ...


so why do these warmists need us to believe?  Can someone answer that question?


----------



## paulitician (Oct 15, 2015)

jc456 said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > nat4900 said:
> ...



Doomsday sells. It convinces most that they desperately need a Savior. And the One World Government folks are playing the 'Global Warming' Savior. Gotta get those Taxes and take complete control of the People. Gotta save the world. It's all Bullshit.


----------



## nat4900 (Oct 15, 2015)

Fine, right wingers......

Scientists are wrong
Democrats are wrong
the Pope is wrong

the fact that in most of China's cities folks walk around with either surgical masks or oxygen tanks to NOT breathe their air directly....all that means nothing................Until....?

What you deniers are forgetting is that there is a HUGE economic potential in rectifying the fact that we've treated our air and water as a septic tank.

I'm not here to convince you......Live in denial.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 15, 2015)

nat4900 said:


> Fine, right wingers......
> 
> Scientists are wrong
> Democrats are wrong
> ...


oh so you believe in God now?  You included the Pope in this post.  So I'm assuming you now believe in God, correct?

How long you all told us there is nothing but evolution, and now the Pope is right?  Funny stuff friend.  I see you can't reply to the questions I asked you.  

Again, why do you care what I believe?
And, why is that important to you?  

BTW, welcome to religion you and the Pope can become BFFs


----------



## IanC (Oct 15, 2015)

nat4900 said:


> Fine, right wingers......
> 
> Scientists are wrong
> Democrats are wrong
> ...




You are confusing CO2 with pollution. cO2 is plant food. I am all for reducing pollution in a practical way.


----------



## paulitician (Oct 15, 2015)

nat4900 said:


> Fine, right wingers......
> 
> Scientists are wrong
> Democrats are wrong
> ...



Pollution and 'Global Warming' are two separate issues. I don't know anyone who supports pollution. And you still haven't explained what you guys are so 'right' about. Climate changes, we get that. What else you got?


----------



## paulitician (Oct 15, 2015)

Ok Global Warming zealots, the climate changes. We all get that. Now what? What's your plan?


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 15, 2015)

nat4900 said:


> You moronic right wingers actually thrive on belittling science.....There is NO argument amount our changing weather patterns; you'd rather believe some lone dissenter than the 99% of scientists who have and will continue to warn us of the impending dangers......Sure, your sorry asses won't be around to see the devastation, but your great grand kids will....and will curse your souls for it.
> 
> The turmoil in many parts of Africa AND the civil war in Syria initially began because of global warming.....
> 
> If the impending devastation were to happen tomorrow (which won't happen), you morons would be the first claiming that you did NOT EVER doubt that it would happen. Such is the nature of morons.



Wow.. Exhibit A in the hype and propaganda of GW. "The civil war in Syria began because of Global Warming". 
Hey Nat -- the bodysnatchers gotcha.. You should do the right thing and quarantine yourself.. 

During your lifetime --- the average global temperature has risen by MAYBE ONE degF.The natural variance where people live (and in Syria) is about +/- 35degF.. If that kind of deal starts wars --- there would have 26 more US Civil Wars by now..


----------



## nat4900 (Oct 15, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Wow.. Exhibit A in the hype and propaganda of GW. "The civil war in Syria began because of Global Warming".
> Hey Nat -- the bodysnatchers gotcha.. You should do the right thing and quarantine yourself..




...and in chimes yet another right wing nitwit who did NOT bother to read the 3 articles posted on the impact of droughts on and in the Middle East which greatly contributed to the discord and mass migration.

Tell you what, check with Rush or Sean for your scientific "knowledge".


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 15, 2015)

nat4900 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Wow.. Exhibit A in the hype and propaganda of GW. "The civil war in Syria began because of Global Warming".
> ...




Yeah -- all those 45 factions fighting in Syria for DIFFERENT CAUSES is because of Global Warming. But old Jordan has a similar (but more hostile) climate and things are just HUNKY down there.

Go Figure..  Seriously man. I don't hang out in conspiracy forums. And you are in need of an exorcism or at least antibiotics for whatever voodoo garbage you've been exposed to ..


----------



## nat4900 (Oct 15, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Yeah -- all those 45 factions fighting in Syria for DIFFERENT CAUSES is because of Global Warming. But old Jordan has a similar (but more hostile) climate and things are just HUNKY down there.




Fine, I really don't give a crap whether you believe that GW is contributing to the ME unrest.....This forum is NOT a venue to educate morons....believe what you wish.


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 15, 2015)

nat4900 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah -- all those 45 factions fighting in Syria for DIFFERENT CAUSES is because of Global Warming. But old Jordan has a similar (but more hostile) climate and things are just HUNKY down there.
> ...



There never has been droughts in Syria before? Do you know the drought history of the region??


----------



## nat4900 (Oct 15, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> There never has been droughts in Syria before? Do you know the drought history of the region??




Good lord, you're just as dumb as a can of dried paint....

There's NEVER been a drought in Syria ALONG WITH a raging civil war, the growth of ISIS, the Kurds, Arab spring, a war next door in Iraq, tension with Turkey and the growing dissatisfaction with Assad.

Give it a rest, read a newspaper, talk to your fellow Ilk.


----------



## Dante (Oct 15, 2015)

just checked


the facts are in


the globe has warmed up and human activities have contributed to it


----------



## Conservative65 (Oct 15, 2015)

Dante said:


> just checked
> 
> 
> the facts are in
> ...



Just checked and the facts, along with a source to prove it, are in.  The globe has been cooling.

www.theamericanthinker.com/articles/2015/10/the_climate_is_indeed_changing_cooling_ahead.html


----------



## jc456 (Oct 15, 2015)

nat4900 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > There never has been droughts in Syria before? Do you know the drought history of the region??
> ...


really?  You don't think there was ever any wars in that region before?  Really, are you telling us all that?

And is it that you think GW causes war?


----------



## jillian (Oct 15, 2015)

gtopa1 said:


> The cultists will never give up their dogma!!
> 
> Greg



david evans isn't a climate scientist.... 

and "rightscoop" isn't a scientific journal.

but thanks for playing

I guess rightwingnut  science deniers lose again.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 15, 2015)

jillian said:


> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> > The cultists will never give up their dogma!!
> ...


but you dig those cartoonists scientists right?


----------



## gtopa1 (Oct 15, 2015)

jillian said:


> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> > The cultists will never give up their dogma!!
> ...



Want to buy an "The end is nigh" T-shirt?? lol

Greg


----------



## gtopa1 (Oct 15, 2015)

jillian said:


> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> > The cultists will never give up their dogma!!
> ...




He's a mathematician. Models are merely constructs put together by mathematicians.  I am very interested in how he is viewed by other reputable mathematicians. Glad to see you identify with the "anti-Capitalist pigs" brigade.

Greg


----------



## gtopa1 (Oct 15, 2015)

nat4900 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > There never has been droughts in Syria before? Do you know the drought history of the region??
> ...



So what is your bloody point?? Do you have one?

Greg


----------



## gtopa1 (Oct 15, 2015)

Dante said:


> just checked
> 
> 
> the facts are in
> ...



You know a bloody farting cow also contributes to "warming". I am sorry but you'll have to find another shtick; the earth has been warming since the 1700s....by very small increments...with the 1930s being the warmest IN RAW DATA...followed by a cooling until the 70s. Account for that cooling as CO2 levels were going up then as well. 



Greg


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 15, 2015)

Dante said:


> just checked
> 
> 
> the facts are in
> ...



That's true.. And I don't disagree -- but that is NOT the constant dramatic hysteria that is being constantly churned out. The lies and misrepresentations about this little warming blip being unprecendented in thousands of years. Or your compadre Nat who was told that GW caused the war in Syria.. Or your Prez who tells the Coast Guard cadets that Global Warming is among their most important missions.

What you said is NOT what the GW theory is about. Your theory states that man's emissions are just the TRIGGER for Earth to launch into an irreparable suicide spin.. All those imagined multipliers to the actual warming power of CO2 are just speculation. That's how they take a relatively small effect of CO2 and EXPAND that into a doomsday crisis.

Man-made emissions -- by themselves --- are not capable of DIRECTLY warming the planet to the degree that GW has speculated. All that additional warming comes from speculated feedback loops in the climate system. This speculation from the folks who only recently discovered that the oceans are MASSIVE storage of the increased GreenHouse heating. Thus REMOVING it from the atmospheric thermal exchanges..


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 15, 2015)

jillian said:


> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> > The cultists will never give up their dogma!!
> ...



Doesn't HAVE to be a Climate scientist. Climate science is a multidisciplinary field. They need physicists, statisticians, modeling experts, geologists, botanists, oceanographers, space systems people, etc   Literally DOZENS of specialties involved. So happens -- Evans is a specialist in systems modeling and mathematics. Something that MOST ALL climate scientists aren't really required to study.. Which could explain why those early "climate models" are failing so badly...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 15, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > nat4900 said:
> ...



Thy are changing the EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE  to match their failed models..  In other words, they are falsifying the predictive step of theroy falsification in an effort to make them agree when they DO NOT!


----------



## Dante (Oct 15, 2015)

gtopa1 said:


> You know a bloody farting cow also contributes to "warming".


Reagan and Trees cause pollution? 

*The Genius of Ronald Reagan: Direct Quotes from the Gipper Himself *

"Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do." -- Ronald Reagan, 1981

"A tree is a tree. How many more do you have to look at?" -- Ronald Reagan, 1966, opposing expansion of Redwood National Park as governor of California

"I have flown twice over Mt St. Helens out on our west coast. I'm not a scientist and I don't know the figures, but I have a suspicion that that one little mountain has probably released more sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere of the world than has been released in the last ten years of automobile driving or things of that kind that people are so concerned about." -- Ronald Reagan, 1980. (Actually, Mount St. Helens, at its peak activity, emitted about 2,000 tons of sulfur dioxide per day, compared with 81,000 tons per day by cars.)
Ronald W Reagan Quotes​


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 15, 2015)

gtopa1 said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > just checked
> ...


In the US, you damned fool. Why don't you people ever do any research before flapping your ignorant yaps. 

NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - NOAA: Past Decade Warmest on Record According to Scientists in 48 Countries

“The temperature increase of one degree Fahrenheit over the past 50 years may seem small, but it has already altered our planet,” said Deke Arndt, co-editor of the report and chief of the Climate Monitoring Branch of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center. “Glaciers and sea ice are melting, heavy rainfall is intensifying and heat waves are more common. And, as the new report tells us, there is now evidence that over 90 percent of warming over the past 50 years has gone into our ocean.”

More and more, Americans are witnessing the impacts of climate change in their own backyards, including sea-level rise, longer growing seasons, changes in river flows, increases in heavy downpours, earlier snowmelt and extended ice-free seasons in our waters. People are searching for relevant and timely information about these changes to inform decision-making about virtually all aspects of their lives. To help keep citizens and businesses informed about climate, NOAA created the Climate Portal at*http://www.climate.gov*. The portal features a short video that summarizes some of the highlights of the State of the Climate Report.


----------



## Dante (Oct 15, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > just checked -- the facts are in -- the globe has warmed up and human activities have contributed to it
> ...


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 15, 2015)

gtopa1 said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > just checked
> ...


Aerosols. Ever consider doing research before posting?


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 15, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > just checked
> ...


Now how on earth do the oceans being warmer remove them from the atmospheric thermal exchanges? What are the El Nino and La Nina affects? And the melting of the sea ice in the Arctic is primarily an effect of a warming ocean. And effect whose affect on the jet stream has already been documented. That is a rather strong exchange with the atmosphere. And then the warming of the oceans serves as a driver of tropical storms, of which the Pacific basin has just had a record number, is that not a rather strong thermal exchange between the ocean and atmosphere?


----------



## Dante (Oct 15, 2015)

flacaltenn


flacaltenn said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > just checked
> ...


Everything before your _but_ is intelligent, but I am not sure that is by design 

after you _but _it is all ideological. Dante does NOT argue _the science_ with non scientists and especially with non climate scientists. As a matter of principle Dante has never to my knowledge ever argued the science. Stating what the consensus within the scientific community is on the science is not arguing the scientific details nor is it arguing that there is a consensus method that verifies scientific data


----------



## Dante (Oct 15, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Doesn't HAVE to be a Climate scientist. Climate science is a multidisciplinary field. They need physicists, statisticians, modeling experts, geologists, botanists, oceanographers, space systems people, etc   Literally DOZENS of specialties involved. So happens -- Evans is a specialist in systems modeling and mathematics. Something that MOST ALL climate scientists aren't really required to study.. Which could explain why those early "climate models" are failing so badly...


Evans is a blogger.

When and if his 'stuff' gets peer reviewed it is just bullshit


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 15, 2015)

jc456 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



You mean, you want evidence of what will happen in the future? You know that's impossible right?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 15, 2015)

paulitician said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



Well, the think is that some animals might thrive in times of high CO2, but will humans? 

Humanity might be doomed, life on the planet probably not. 

But then again, should we be changing the world in a manner where we don't know the impact it will have on life, especially human life?

It seems there are those who only care about themselves and want to make oil profits, and therefore spend loads of money making sure people are not concerned about something that has the potential to go wrong.

If you don't know the outcome of a big change, are you willing to take the risk? 

Those who make profits from oil etc are willing to take this risk. Why are you?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 15, 2015)

paulitician said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



Actually if you look at say, the great empires, what we see is a decline when things get too hot. 

The Egyptians were followed by the Greeks and then the Romans. As things changed so too did the areas able to sustain great empires. 

Are equatorial countries at the top of the GDP pile? No, in fact it is mostly countries in milder climates, Europe, China, Japan, North America, etc.


----------



## Programmer (Oct 15, 2015)

Misty said:


> "A former climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, with six degrees in applied mathematics, Dr Evans has unpacked the architecture of the basic climate model which underpins all climate science.
> 
> *He has found that, while the underlying physics of the model is correct, it had been applied incorrectly.
> 
> ...


Who's handling this guy's security?


----------



## Dante (Oct 15, 2015)

jc456


frigidweirdo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > until what does that?  Let's see some evidence of something you fear here.
> ...


----------



## Dante (Oct 15, 2015)

Programmer said:


> Misty said:
> 
> 
> > "A former climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, with six degrees in applied mathematics, Dr Evans has unpacked the architecture of the basic climate model which underpins all climate science.
> ...


The Oath Keepers or some such group of imbeciles


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 15, 2015)

Dante said:


> just checked
> 
> 
> the facts are in
> ...



Now you must show how much man has contributed. You must show how and where the contributions came from and how it has affected the atmosphere.  

Please show your work to include the math, methodology, and data..


----------



## Dante (Oct 15, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > just checked
> ...


I think you just went off your meds again or they are wearing off and you are late for the next dose

My work? Dante has never claimed to be a scientist and Dante has never argued the science of climate change with anyone, let alone a non scientist kook like you

NASA NOAA and other agencies are doing work on things. I trust them over you. I guess that makes me a dupe and a part of a conspiracy


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 15, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


Excellent point, a number of civilizations have collapsed due to climate change.  None of which were triggered by mankind.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Oct 15, 2015)

*Scientist discovers errors in global warming model*

holy crap say it aint so 

--LOL

what are those flateartherwarmists going to do now 

--LOL


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 15, 2015)

Weatherman2020 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



What is this? Climate change primary school edition?


Who is saying climate change hasn't happened in the past? No one, not a single person. So why are you trying to make a point as if people have said this?

There are two things.

Climate change and MAN MADE climate change. You see the difference? 

One is natural, the Earth goes through phases. What happens happens. However with man made climate change we can't say what the impact might be....


----------



## jon_berzerk (Oct 15, 2015)

Weatherman2020 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



wasnt that great of a point really --LOL


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 15, 2015)

jon_berzerk said:


> *Scientist discovers errors in global warming model*
> 
> holy crap say it aint so
> 
> ...



You understand that we can only predict the future right? Models are made with the data that exists, and people try to say what might happen. But it's what it is. It's not what WILL happen. But what could happen.

However making educated guesses is far better than saying "well, we can't predict the future so let's not bother." We still have weather forecasts, we don't say we can't predict the weather with 100% certainty, so let's not bother, do we?


----------



## jon_berzerk (Oct 15, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...




if man can impact the climate like you say

then there is no need for natures "what happens happens"


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 15, 2015)

jon_berzerk said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



Why?

We can impact, we just can't control.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Oct 15, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > *Scientist discovers errors in global warming model*
> ...




the models have not been accurate as of yet 

the predictions made even more hilarious


----------



## jon_berzerk (Oct 15, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...




--LOL


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 15, 2015)

jon_berzerk said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...



Really? They said we'd get warmer, we're getting warmer.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 15, 2015)

jon_berzerk said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...



I ask why, you say "LOL", is that why? Really?


----------



## jon_berzerk (Oct 15, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...






if you can change it by accident 

you can change it on purpose 

if you cant 

*why the fuck bother with this global warming nonsens*e


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 15, 2015)




----------



## Wyatt earp (Oct 15, 2015)

Dante said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



That's called FAITH/ a religion retard.

We want facts and data, you just want to BELIEVE...


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 15, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


A. Who says today's climate is optimum?  Alarmists.  Yet the fact is a much warmer climate is optimum for life.
B. Who says mankind controls the climate? Alarmists.  Yet the fact remains man does not control the weather.
C. Ice Ages coming and going are attributed to earth wobble and solar fluctuations.  Guess what two variables are missing from every alarmist computer model.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Oct 15, 2015)

Vigilante said:


>




actually flat earthers believe in man made global warming


----------



## Vigilante (Oct 15, 2015)




----------



## Vigilante (Oct 15, 2015)

jon_berzerk said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


Makes it even funnier!


----------



## jon_berzerk (Oct 15, 2015)

bear513 said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...




and the Gospel is spread with fudged climate models


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 15, 2015)

jon_berzerk said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...



Er.... if you can change it by accident, yes, you can change it on purpose, assuming you have all the right ingredients.

However there is change without knowing the consequences and there is change knowing the consequences. If we change the climate, we don't know the consequences of these actions, which is EXACTLY what is happening right now.

Scientists don't KNOW the actual result of man made climate change. They believe it will be bad, but don't know how bad.

You on the other hand don't care for the consequences. You stick your head in the sand and say "well, I don't know, so I won't do anything".

You're like a man on a desert island who sees that it's not raining today, so assumes it will never rain.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Oct 15, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...




so as bear says it is faith based


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 15, 2015)

Weatherman2020 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...



A) It's not about optimum climate. 
B) No one says we control the climate as far as I'm aware.
C) Ice ages coming and going isn't an issue here.

So, three points which all ignore the reality of what this is about.

We're changing the climate and we don't know the impact this will have. We're playing russian roulette with pollution. 

You like playing russian roulette?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 15, 2015)

jon_berzerk said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...



Not faith based. Mostly it's based on educated guesses. The Bible isn't an educated guess in any way.

It's also based on the fact that we know that we can't control things and often we see man made things causing problems that we can't reverse later on. Like the bees situation.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Oct 15, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...




those educated guesses have been way off the mark 

almost as if they had been intended to scare the weak minded into believing it


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 15, 2015)

jon_berzerk said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...



But closer to the mark than those people who say nothing is happening. 

What we have here is this situation. People making educated guesses with available data and not being able to get 00% accuracy for obvious reasons and people sitting back saying "we shouldn't do anything because they can't get 100% accuracy". 

You tell me what will happen in the future. You don't know. You're merely saying that predictions might not be accurate. Does it matter? They might not be accurate, but you can bet if something goes wrong we're screwed. 

You don't want to do anything on the off chance that the "if" won't happen? 

You wouldn't build a tornado shelter because there might not be a tornado? 

Whether weak people are scared or not is neither here nor there. Do you BELIEVE that in 50 years time everything will still be okay?


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 15, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



When you're talking about uptake of atmospheric heat into the oceans -- you can't double-book the effect. If you SEE increasing amounts of thermal energy at depth -- It means the oceans are SOMEHOW (not yet understood) sinking that heat to 700m and beyond. So all that heat was TAKEN FROM the atmos. cycle and removed from the GreenHouse exchanges. Or don't you understand the "ocean's ate my GW excuse"?? When you get El Ninos and high pts of AMOs and such -- some of that heat is put back into the atmos. 

From the NOAA data -- the oceans have been warming at a pretty small but constant rate since we had the ability to measure them globally. If only climate science would quit this silly "global" business for every study and learn how ONE ocean actually works -- they'd be much farther ahead and wasted less money..


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 15, 2015)

Dante said:


> flacaltenn
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> ...



Lemme make this perfectly clear -- because I KNOW you can only comprehend IDEOLOGICAL..* NOTHING* I said after the "But" was ideological. It was all fact and trackable science. You wouldn't recognize it if it had a picture of Mr Wizard on it...

You've evidently wasted a shitload of your life arguing a consensus that never existed. You would have been better off reading the science and not having ideologues spoon feed you the propaganda..


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 15, 2015)

Dante said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Doesn't HAVE to be a Climate scientist. Climate science is a multidisciplinary field. They need physicists, statisticians, modeling experts, geologists, botanists, oceanographers, space systems people, etc   Literally DOZENS of specialties involved. So happens -- Evans is a specialist in systems modeling and mathematics. Something that MOST ALL climate scientists aren't really required to study.. Which could explain why those early "climate models" are failing so badly...
> ...



Really troll??? Why don't you look up his curriculum vitae. I doubt you'd understand most of it..


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 15, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



Not if you CLAIM you can calculate the process and produce a model that accurately predicts the process. 
We do that all the time. That's how you accurately guide a spacecraft to land on Mars. Or design an aerodynamics package for a race car. That's what the GW meisters CLAIM they have developed by their relatively crude understanding of the Earth's climate system. And instead of making progress in understanding all of the nuisances, we've squandered time and money by focusing only on the effects of man's emissions. We STILL really don't understand the cyclical nature or variabilities in the Sun's primary role or the way that heat is distributed in the oceans and the atmosphere.


----------



## Dante (Oct 15, 2015)

bear513


bear513 said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > NASA NOAA and other agencies are doing work on things. I trust them over you. I guess that makes me a dupe and a part of a conspiracy
> ...


Faith?  

There is no faith or belief on this stupid. 

I'm sorry, this bear poster is just too stupid... I can't finish a reply


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 15, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



We do probably impact the climate a bit. And if you know the cause -- it MIGHT be preventable. CO2 has a diminishing effect on the GreenHouse. For every degree in temperature you get from increases in temperature -- you need TWICE as much CO2 to get the next degree. And water vapor is by far the LARGEST GHouse gas contributor.  The GW theory states that man-made emissions are just the "trigger" to a runaway GH effect. That's the part of GW that is hotly debated and certainly not settled.


----------



## Dante (Oct 15, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Really troll??? Why don't you look up his curriculum vitae. I doubt you'd understand most of it..


Troll?  You fit that definition very well yourself. seriously 

The man's posts on his wife's blog are NOT science. The day he has something peer reviewed on climate science I will listen to him


----------



## Dante (Oct 15, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Lemme make this perfectly clear -- because I KNOW you can only comprehend IDEOLOGICAL..* NOTHING* I said after the "But" was ideological. It was all fact and trackable science. You wouldn't recognize it if it had a picture of Mr Wizard on it...
> 
> You've evidently wasted a shitload of your life arguing a consensus that never existed. You would have been better off reading the science and not having ideologues spoon feed you the propaganda..


after your but

The lies and misrepresentations about this little warming blip being unprecendented in thousands of years. Or your compadre Nat who was told that GW caused the war in Syria.. Or your Prez who tells the Coast Guard cadets that Global Warming is among their most important missions.​


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 15, 2015)

Dante said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



Actually it does make you a dupe and an accessory to to conspiracy. NASA/NOAA have become a major propaganda organ on the topic.. Led by politically activists like James Hansen who has talked about the boiling of the oceans and "coal trains of death"..  What they release for public consumption are half-truths and in cases -- largely fabricated news releases to grab headlines. They have many times recently retracted bold headlines about "warmest months" and "warmest years"  weeks after dupes like you have consumed the lies.


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 15, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



What they said was to expect ACCELERATED warming in the range of 4 to 8degC per century. Our average rate of warming over the last 30 years has been about 1.5degC per century and DROPPING every year since 2000.

No acceleration means a general failure of the FULL theory of GWarming..


----------



## jon_berzerk (Oct 15, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



they have not been close to any mark 

they have been wildly inaccurate


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 15, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



The bees situation is looking more and more like a man-caused accident. And it if it's the improper use of pesticides -- it WOULD be reversible.


----------



## Dante (Oct 15, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...



The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.​Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Evidence  NASA

One of the most vigorously debated topics on Earth is the issue of climate change, and the National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS) data centers are central to answering some of the most pressing global change questions that remain unresolved. The National Centers for Environmental Information contains the instrumental and paleoclimatic records that can precisely define the nature of climatic fluctuations at time scales of a century and longer. A*mong the diverse kinds of data platforms whose data contribute to NCEI's resources are: Ships, buoys, weather stations, weather balloons, satellites, radar and many climate proxy records such as tree rings and ice cores.* 

The National Oceanographic Data Center contains the subsurface ocean data which reveal the ways that heat is distributed and redistributed over the planet. Knowing how these systems are changing and how they have changed in the past is crucial to understanding how they will change in the future. And, for climate information that extends from hundreds to thousands of years, paleoclimatology data, also available from the National Centers for Environmental Information, helps to provide longer term perspectives.​Introduction: Global Warming |  National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)


Frequently Asked Questions: Frequently Asked Questions |  National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)


----------



## Wyatt earp (Oct 15, 2015)

Dante said:


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



You are retarded.... You posted you TRUST them... With no facts or data to back up the claim 

Sorry that's FAITH. That's a religion....

Gawd Damn you are gullible.


----------



## Dante (Oct 15, 2015)

Just one thing here...
*What are greenhouse gases?*
Many chemical compounds present in Earth's atmosphere behave as 'greenhouse gases'. These are gases which allow direct sunlight (relative shortwave energy) to reach the Earth's surface unimpeded. As the shortwave energy (that in the visible and ultraviolet portion of the spectra) heats the surface, longer-wave (infrared) energy (heat) is reradiated to the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases absorb this energy, thereby allowing less heat to escape back to space, and 'trapping' it in the lower atmosphere. Many greenhouse gases occur naturally in the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor, and nitrous oxide, while others are synthetic. Those that are man-made include the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and Perfluorocarbons (PFCs), as well as sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Atmospheric concentrations of both the natural and man-made gases have been rising over the last few centuries due to the industrial revolution. As the global population has increased and our reliance on fossil fuels (such as coal, oil and natural gas) has been firmly solidified, so emissions of these gases have risen. While gases such as carbon dioxide occur naturally in the atmosphere, through our interference with the carbon cycle (through burning forest lands, or mining and burning coal), we artificially move carbon from solid storage to its gaseous state, thereby increasing atmospheric concentrations.​Hmm... Greenhouse Gases |  National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)


----------



## Dante (Oct 15, 2015)

bear513 said:


> You are retarded.... You posted you TRUST them... With no facts or data to back up the claim
> 
> Sorry that's FAITH. That's a religion....
> 
> Gawd Damn you are gullible.


Believing the science is not faith.  

Unlike religion which is based totally on unverifiable and untested stories and superstitions...

never mind. you're just a garden variety dullard


----------



## Dante (Oct 15, 2015)

NCEI's Global Temperature Anomalies Dataset
The Merged Land & Ocean Surface Temperature data are presented as anomalies (departures from a long-term average) on a five-degree by five-degree global grid. The period of record is January 1880 through the most recent month.
NOAA's official responses to congressional hearing on climate change and adaptation
NCEI Director Thomas Karl's written testimony on climate change adaptation before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and Subcommittee on Energy and Environment


----------



## Wyatt earp (Oct 15, 2015)

Dante said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...




How much ocean temperature data do we have ?

You just want to trust data from 2004?


Gawd damn you are a cult member...


Ocean temperture records | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 16, 2015)

bear513 said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...




You might point out to the brainwashed cultist that NASA GISS (stands for Goddard Inst.of Space Sciences) -- when they release all those blaring headlines about :"hottest month ever" and later retracts them -- NEVER ONCE mentions in their press releases that the 0.02degC responsible for this record WAS NOT CONFIRMED BY THEIR OWN GOD-DAMNED SATELLITES !!!! 

Seems odd for a "space sciences" branch of the government to be preferring to declare records based on a highly man-processed and flawed database of thousands of land/sea based thermometers -- rather than the better coverage, more reliable SPACE satellites --- dontcha think it deserves a mention??


----------



## Dante (Oct 16, 2015)

bear513 said:


> How much ocean temperature data do we have ? You just want to trust data from 2004?


There you go again playing climate scientist on the web without a science degree in climate science


----------



## Dante (Oct 16, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...


and unlike ideologues the scientists admit error


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 16, 2015)

Dante said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



Just like any other profession. You will find raving fanatics with agendas in the sciences. And when you feed them a steady diet of Govt grants or appoint them to head your science agencies -- they will pervert their profession to get to their goals.   

The problem isn't the entire community. The problem is the UN version of "science" and about a couple dozen other "fanatics" who manage to feed the angles and the propaganda to the media...


----------



## Wyatt earp (Oct 16, 2015)

Dante said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > How much ocean temperature data do we have ? You just want to trust data from 2004?
> ...



Lmao you can't refute me... You need a climate science degree now? Hey I got an idea how about you go see the wizard of oz and ask for free will. Ask for common sense,

Like I said you put blind faith in what you are told...

That's a religion....


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 16, 2015)

Like when a political leader stacks his EPA with ideologues and then gets them to 

A) declare CO2 "a pollutant" (when what you exhale is 5 times more polluted than the air you breath in.) 

AND 

B) Use that anti-science definition to confuse the public about the difference between "carbon pollution" and CO2 in order to misguide people into associating REAL pollution with the GW issue..


----------



## Wyatt earp (Oct 16, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...




These AGW cult members will never understand that or want to, they like running around like a chicken with their head cut off screaming "HOTTEST DAY EVER RECORDED"

They weird. They remind me of the Jim Jones cult.


----------



## Dante (Oct 16, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Just like any other profession. You will find raving fanatics with agendas in the sciences. And when you feed them a steady diet of Govt grants or appoint them to head your science agencies -- they will pervert their profession to get to their goals.
> 
> The problem isn't the entire community. The problem is the UN version of "science" and about a couple dozen other "fanatics" who manage to feed the angles and the propaganda to the media...


Your claim is that the fanatics have been appointed to head the government agencies? You keep on going on about the UN. Thy do NOT set the agenda for US science policy or research. They are NOT in control of appointing heads of US agencies. 

You tie your conspiracy together with the silly string of government grants -- $$$$If any of what you claim were true there would have been an uproar from within the scientific community and there was not and has not been one. The uproars has come from POLITICIANS funded through donations and people funded through GRANTS by Big Oil and others


----------



## Dante (Oct 16, 2015)

bear513 said:


> These AGW cult members will never understand that or want to, they like running around like a chicken with their head cut off screaming "HOTTEST DAY EVER RECORDED"
> 
> They weird. They remind me of the Jim Jones cult.


go away with your broken record


----------



## Dante (Oct 16, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Like when a political leader stacks his EPA with ideologues and then gets them to
> 
> A) declare CO2 "a pollutant" (when what you exhale is 5 times more polluted than the air you breath in.)
> 
> ...


again you use political arguments

Reagan appointed people to head agency's who were anti those agency's missions. If I were to argue over their policies that would be a political argument. If I were to argue over the research that went into teh agencies missions ....


see?


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 16, 2015)

Dante said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Like when a political leader stacks his EPA with ideologues and then gets them to
> ...



You're making ZERO sense.. You're rejecting that GW is political and then when I CLEARLY illustrate how political it is --- you excuse those actions as political.. Seems like there's more than just the science that you don't understand or don't WANT to understand..


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 16, 2015)

Did those A) and B) things happen? And how can you ignore the abuse of power and the prostitution of science to MAKE them happen in order to keep the GW movement alive??


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 16, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Not if you CLAIM you can calculate the process and produce a model that accurately predicts the process.
> We do that all the time. That's how you accurately guide a spacecraft to land on Mars. Or design an aerodynamics package for a race car. That's what the GW meisters CLAIM they have developed by their relatively crude understanding of the Earth's climate system. And instead of making progress in understanding all of the nuisances, we've squandered time and money by focusing only on the effects of man's emissions. We STILL really don't understand the cyclical nature or variabilities in the Sun's primary role or the way that heat is distributed in the oceans and the atmosphere.




If someone produces a model and predicts the future of climate change, you know it's a prediction right? If you pretend it's anything else other than that, then it's your problem for not seeing what is blatantly obvious. Most of the time it isn't the scientists who are making these claims, it's the media. The Scientists say "our model shows this" then the media says "Scientists say this will happen". You see? And it's your fault if you believe the media. 

Do we need to understand the natural cycle here? What happens happens. We can't control it, we can merely reduce its impact on us. We also do research those things you're talking about. However the media likes to big up the man made stuff. I'd say probably justifiably. This is the thing we don't know if we can survive. We've survived various cycles of the Earth's climate.


----------



## Dante (Oct 16, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> You're making ZERO sense.. You're rejecting that GW is political and then when I CLEARLY illustrate how political it is --- you excuse those actions as political.. Seems like there's more than just the science that you don't understand or don't WANT to understand..



What probably confuses you is that Dante separates the science from the policy debate

Any policy debate has to have some sort of politics involved -- it is what separates people into parties to a debate over policy. How to, when to, etc...


----------



## Dante (Oct 16, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Did those A) and B) things happen? And how can you ignore the abuse of power and the prostitution of science to MAKE them happen in order to keep the GW movement alive??


abuse of power?

oh please, your alarmism is showing

what's next  _Benghazi_!!!?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 16, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...



Well, there are 7 billion people on the planet. Within a few decades this will rise. 

China has about 1.3 billion people, and rising, quickly. The one child policy is rocking because of social issues, the Chinese are getting richer, they're using three times more oil now than 15 years ago and this is with half the country still in relative poverty. India has the potential to get richer, as do many other countries, and with this comes more consumption of fuel and more pollution. 

We don't really understand what's happening with CO2. Some suggest that the sea is taking in a lot of this CO2 mitigating the impact, but then what happens if the sea suddenly can't take it any more and all this CO2 suddenly increases by four, five, six fold or more? 

Yes, water vapor is the biggest greenhouse gas. But it's always been there. The Greenhouse effect exists for a reason and we've developed as a world within these parameters. But we're changing these parameters and we don't know what is going to happen. If something goes wrong, there is no turning back.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 16, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...



Okay, so they've predicted warming. Is this warming not happening?

I mean, if we're in a position of natural global cooling of say -6C and we see a man made warming of +8C, then we get a warming of +2C, are they wrong for claiming a man made warming of +8C????


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 16, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...



Potentially, unless the bees were to die out first. 

But then with climate change you're dealing with something far larger that would potentially not be reversible.


----------



## Kosh (Oct 16, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



Another AGW cult member who does not understand anything!


----------



## Kosh (Oct 16, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



More AGW religious dogma..

But then again the magnetic field of the planet has more to with climate than the CO2 myth..

CO2 does not drove climate and it never has..


----------



## jc456 (Oct 16, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


well I'm not the one predicting any threatening anything.  Why is it you can't back your claim?  so where is your evidence I should fear?  Can you show how powerful 20 PPM of CO2 is?  Can you?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 16, 2015)

Dante said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...


ok, then show their work.  You know the evidence that moved you into a fearful corner that you feel you can't get out of.  Post it!!!


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 16, 2015)

Dante said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Just like any other profession. You will find raving fanatics with agendas in the sciences. And when you feed them a steady diet of Govt grants or appoint them to head your science agencies -- they will pervert their profession to get to their goals.
> ...



Wow.. Conspiracy shill and left wit retard..
CAGW has been the poster child of the left wing control mongers for 50 years now.  There is NOTHING scientific about it an your head being up your ass makes you a useful idiot.  

The empirical evidence does not support any angle of the UN or EPS AGW cult beliefs..

Let me guess, you believe that all upward adjustments of the historical record in the recent past are justified and that cooling the early 1900's to take away the heat of the 1930's is goof too...


----------



## jc456 (Oct 16, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


you know those two pieces are contradicting correct?


----------



## jon_berzerk (Oct 16, 2015)

jc456 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




they say it is faith based 

you just have to believe


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 16, 2015)

jc456 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Well this is the thing. I can back up my claims. I can't back them up with what will happen in the future, again, this is impossible, however I can use evidence of what has happened in the past to show what could happen in the future. However whenever you do this then people tell you that this doesn't work because it's not what will happen. 

Whether I can or can't show how powerful 20 PPM of CO2 is, depends on whether I use this for MY argument or not. If you use it for your argument then that's great.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 16, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Not if you CLAIM you can calculate the process and produce a model that accurately predicts the process.
> ...



Your predictions have all failed by a factor of ten..


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 16, 2015)

jc456 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...



What? Are you insane?

Do you know what the words "impact" and "control" are? If you don't, I suggest you look them up because they're NOT contradictory. And NO, I'm not going to teach you basic fucking English.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 16, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



My predictions. What are my predictions. And can you show me how, exactly, they have failed and how they have failed by a factor of ten. Because I'm smelling so much bull right now....


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 16, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



The earth has had millions of years at well above 7,000ppm and the average for the long term is 1,575ppm.  Your fear is misplaced as the earths temp has never runaway.


----------



## BlindBoo (Oct 16, 2015)

Kosh said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Please name the scientist or the study that claimed CO2 drives the climate.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 16, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Yeah, it had millions of years.... how many of those millions of years had human beings driving around in their cars.... er... none. Could it be possible that it was okay for dinosaurs, but would kill of human beings? This is the point here.

I'm fine with humans being wiped off the planet, probably for the best. Are you?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 16, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


well you see, if you had evidence of how powerful 20 PPM of CO2 was, and predicted that in the future there will be an added 20 PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere, then one could conclude how much of change would be coming due to that additional CO2.  But see, you can't, neither can any warmer scientist to date except Herr Koch in 1901 who showed adding additional CO2 did very little if anything to temperatures.  

And the mere fact that manual adjustments are being made by unreliable individuals who receive funding for specific results and to ensure modeling predictions from the past can now be proven based on said adjustments, well is insincere to say the least.  So, you can believe whatever you want, but don't ask for green energy dollars from my tax money or penalty money from coal plants supplying me heat in the winter.

Stay away from the money and you can believe whatever it is you wish.  

Us on my side will know it is full of shite.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 16, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


it's now obvious you don't.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 16, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


oh my gawd.  seriously?

Well I supposed since you don't know the difference between 'impact' and 'control' in the sentence you constructed, I can see how you get here.  Just wow!!!


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 16, 2015)

jc456 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Oh jeez, someone trying to take the high ground when they're clearly not aware of differences in words. Sorry, I'm not in the mood for this kind of crap right now.


----------



## paulitician (Oct 16, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



There is no scientific evidence supporting the belief a warmer climate will spell the end of humanity. All evidence available supports the opposite. Talk to me when you guys start pushing your 'Global Cooling' scam. The planet getting colder could be somewhat of a concern.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 16, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


not at all, someone explaining that you have no idea what the difference is.  No moral high ground, just more factual information regarding how uneducated folks as yourself are with the environment.  Funny stuff frank!!!!


----------



## paulitician (Oct 16, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



More CO2 will cause more moisture. So it wouldn't be an extreme dry desert heat. It would more likely be a lush tropical heat. The climate record proves that. So your CO2 Boogeyman isn't quite the Boogeyman you guys make it out to be. The historical climate record shows that animal and plant life thrive in those climates.

Some believe the earth getting colder may have actually contributed to humans experiencing the Dark Ages. They may have experienced a 'Mini-Ice Age. So if you are inclined to live in fear over climate change, the planet getting colder should be more of a concern.


----------



## paulitician (Oct 16, 2015)

Weatherman2020 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



Spot On. And obviously, different parts of the earth experience different climates and weather. That's always been the case, and always will be the case. But if they're gonna continue to push the CO2 Boogeyman, the historical climate record shows during periods of high CO2 levels and warm climates, life on earth thrives. 

So if you remove the politics and fear, it becomes obvious that mankind is not doomed because of CO2. Their scam is beginning to crumble.


----------



## paulitician (Oct 16, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...



Good points. No need for alarm. 'Greenhouses' aren't anything to fear. They support and promote life. There will be no CO2 Global Warming apocalypse.


----------



## paulitician (Oct 16, 2015)

jon_berzerk said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



Cult-like faith.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 16, 2015)

paulitician said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Jim Jones Cult-like faith.  You know, ready to drink the kool-aid


----------



## paulitician (Oct 16, 2015)

I've already asked the Global Warming zealots to spell out what their plan is to stop Climate Change. Still haven't gotten anything coherent out of em. But i'm patient, i'll give em another shot.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 16, 2015)

BTW, I will die fighting for my money.  I'm not going to die cause some lunatic says take a drink.

I have not liked the direction of the k00ks on the left at all and they've been promoting a lot of kool-aid.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 16, 2015)

paulitician said:


> I've already asked the Global Warming zealots to spell out what their plan is to stop Climate Change. Still haven't gotten anything coherent out of em. But i'm patient, i'll give em another shot.


nor I.  The only comment has been to shut down all coal plants and eliminate humans.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 16, 2015)

great plan eh?

Planet before man.


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 16, 2015)

BlindBoo said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



It's IMPLIED by the statement "that man is (Solely, Largely, or Significantly) responsible for the observed 1deg rise in average global temperatures since about the Industrial revolution. Logic, reason and deduction are your friends when you live in a world of science..


----------



## paulitician (Oct 16, 2015)

jc456 said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > I've already asked the Global Warming zealots to spell out what their plan is to stop Climate Change. Still haven't gotten anything coherent out of em. But i'm patient, i'll give em another shot.
> ...



Yeah, a massive One World Government over-taxing and seizing complete control of the People, isn't gonna stop Climate Change. Nothing's gonna stop the climate from changing. It's all about scaring people into supporting agendas. It's a very old tactic. 

Human Beings have an inherent fear of their inevitable demise. It's programmed into their DNA. End-Times fear mongering works. It's very sad so many enjoy living in fear. But i guess it's part of the human condition. Whata ya gonna do, right?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 16, 2015)

paulitician said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...


what I can.  Fight the good fight.  For my grandchildren.   They don't need to live in a world with crackpots who can't think for themselves.  I'll explain it all to them as often as possible.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Oct 16, 2015)

Misty said:


> "A former climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, with six degrees in applied mathematics, Dr Evans has unpacked the architecture of the basic climate model which underpins all climate science.
> 
> *He has found that, while the underlying physics of the model is correct, it had been applied incorrectly.
> 
> ...


FLASHBACK: ABC's ’08 Prediction: NYC Under Water from Climate Change By June 2015


----------



## BlindBoo (Oct 16, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...



So it would be unreasonable to say that CO2 drives earths climate?  Kosh is the one who claims that is what those who believe in AWG is saying.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 16, 2015)

I believe Kosh is correct.  It is what the AGW are stating.


----------



## BlindBoo (Oct 16, 2015)

jc456 said:


> I believe Kosh is correct.  It is what the AGW are stating.



Name um!


----------



## BlindBoo (Oct 16, 2015)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Misty said:
> 
> 
> > "A former climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, with six degrees in applied mathematics, Dr Evans has unpacked the architecture of the basic climate model which underpins all climate science.
> ...



Nice historical documents you have there.........Not.


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 16, 2015)

BlindBoo said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



Kosh is quite right. Most of the scientific investigation into how the Earth's climate system works has been lasered focused on CO2 -- to the detriment of better understanding the complexity and the fundamentals. So MOST of AGW science is treating CO2 as the PRIMARY reason for every small blip in temperature that occurs. 
It's reflected in their models and it's a main thesis of how the Earth will commit suicide if the temperature passes their "point of no return" ..


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 16, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...




This "complexity" dynamic is of no interest to the religion. That's why you see prominent climate experts like Dr Judith Curry laughing at the level of bogus in the AGW package........all rigged all the time AND focused ONLY on CO2.

OK 


Interested parties need to go and google MWP..........leaves every single AGW nutter standing there with their thumb planted solidly up the pooper!!!


----------



## jc456 (Oct 16, 2015)

BlindBoo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > I believe Kosh is correct.  It is what the AGW are stating.
> ...


ahem,...........Any liberal Democrat.  I'll let you figure out who they are as it is obvious.

And any government funded climate dude/dudette.


----------



## BlindBoo (Oct 16, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Just because the increasing levels CO2 is the focus of scientist doesn't mean they believe it drives the climate, that's just stupid. They want to know what role it plays in the system but they don't actually know how the system works, hence the errors in their models predictions.


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 16, 2015)

BlindBoo said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



I gave you the deductive logic here BlindBoo..  If the majority of scientists believe that our little temperature blip is LARGELY caused by man's emissions --- then by deduction --- they believe that increasing levels of CO2 are also the PRIMARY cause of the temperature rise. OBVIOUSLY in the short-term (within 20 or 30 years) that's not totally true, because there are several instances in the temp.. record where SOMETHING ELSE is swamping out the effect of CO2 warming.. 

Their models have failed BECAUSE They overestimate the effects of CO2 over other natural processes in the climate system..


----------



## IanC (Oct 16, 2015)

BlindBoo said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...




Lacis 2010 is a prime reason to believe they do. Real Climate and other warmer scientist blogs went out of their way to support it.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 16, 2015)

paulitician said:


> There is no scientific evidence supporting the belief a warmer climate will spell the end of humanity. All evidence available supports the opposite. Talk to me when you guys start pushing your 'Global Cooling' scam. The planet getting colder could be somewhat of a concern.



There is no scientific evidence. Does this mean it won't happen?

The evidence points to change in climate leads to extinction of different species. Perhaps humans could survive.

Plenty of possibilities. You just ignore each one of them and then sit back happy that you think you've won. The reality is that we don't know what will happen. Some people go into the unknown carefully because of potential problems, others jump in. Who's more likely to die?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 16, 2015)

jc456 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




Oh, God, you're going to make me show you what they mean, aren't you? You're going to fight and fight and defend an undefensible position. 

impact: definition of impact in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

impact

"The effect or influence of one person, thing, or action, on another:"

control: definition of control in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

control

1.1) Maintain influence or authority over:

1.4) Regulate (a mechanical or scientific process):



Impact is when you influence something. I throw a ball into a crowd of people, I impact that crowd of people.

Control is when you do something and you retain the ability to impact at all times. 

If you've thrown the ball into the crowd of people you no longer control the ball. You have had an impact on the crowd but you don't control the crowd or the ball, but the impact of your original decision is there. 

Clearly they mean two different things.

If we put pollution into the air, you are having an impact. If you stop putting pollution into the air and it does exactly what you want it to do, then you control it. If you put pollution into the air and then you can no longer predict how things will work and everything gets out of control, you no longer have control, but you impacted the situation. 

This wouldn't have been so difficult for you to look up. It's basic English. 

It really annoys me when people fight over the meaning of basic English. I wonder what kind of person I'm dealing with who can't even grasp that sort of thing, especially with so many online dictionaries. 

I found great synonyms for "impact" on the new Thesaurus.com!

Impact - the two best matches on the thesaurus are "brunt" and "shock"

Control there are many, authority, curb, discipline, domination, force, government, jurisdiction, management, oversight, regulation, restraint, restriction, rule, supervision.

Funny how a synonym of Impact isn't "control" and a synonym of control isn't "impact".


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 16, 2015)

paulitician said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



So... we go to a more tropical situation. How many countries in a wet tropical climate do well? Central Africa? No, not really. Brazil is doing okay, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar? 

Some do okay. 

The thing is that life can thrive in such conditions. I'm not saying they can't. Dinosaurs seemed to do well. But then they died out. Humans thrive in places between the cold and the hot jungle. If the whole world suddenly changes then for humanity things will change.

In the heat we use a lot of air conditioning. The hotter it gets, the more electricity we'll use, the more pollution we'll pump out and things will just keep getting worse. 

Potentially things getting colder will be bad for humanity too. However this is natural. We know, more or less, the impact this will have on the world, we know it will change and go back. 

The point I've made quite a few times is with change that isn't controllable, that isn't natural, that could do something that we can't predict, can't deal with.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 16, 2015)

paulitician said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



But again, what life thrives?

Let's bring the dinosaurs back and see how long we survive.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 16, 2015)

paulitician said:


> I've already asked the Global Warming zealots to spell out what their plan is to stop Climate Change. Still haven't gotten anything coherent out of em. But i'm patient, i'll give em another shot.



I don't plan on stopping climate change. Climate change has always happened. 

What I would say is that we need to get closer to our planet. We need more renewable sources of energy.

From every perspective it makes sense. We rely on oil. It's not infinite, it'll run out, or prices go up and down and we get controlled by other people. 
From the point of view of this is our home, it's like living in a house which is dirty. Beijing, right now, has a PM2.5 level of 400. I've been in places where it was 800 for a week. It's disgusting, causes higher levels of cancer, respiratory problems. People who live in this type of pollution want to get out. They use machines (more pollution) to clear the air etc. 

7 billion people on the planet. Half don't use much electricity at all. So we're producing all this pollution with about 3.5 billion people making this. 
In 2000 the world population was estimated to be 6.06 billion. Now it's estimated to be 7.3 billion. In 15 years we've increased by 1.3 billion. Another 15 years and that'll be more than 1.3 billion. 

World population estimates - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This estimates that it will be 8.3 billion in 1 years, but I think it'll be more than that. 






If we had say, 11 billion people using the electricity of an average American, the planet is screwed.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 16, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > There is no scientific evidence supporting the belief a warmer climate will spell the end of humanity. All evidence available supports the opposite. Talk to me when you guys start pushing your 'Global Cooling' scam. The planet getting colder could be somewhat of a concern.
> ...



NOW YOUR GOING FOR THE FEEL GOOD MANTRA..

You left wing zealots are very predictable. You would rather cause wide spread death and destruction now when we have no empirical evidence that what we are doing will cause any problems whatsoever.

Your cure for a nonexistent problem is like taking chemotherapy for a cold.  Just so you can feel good.  

That the problem with you left wits, you dont use logic and think things through..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 16, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > I've already asked the Global Warming zealots to spell out what their plan is to stop Climate Change. Still haven't gotten anything coherent out of em. But i'm patient, i'll give em another shot.
> ...



Wrong again...

Use your brain.. We could very easily accommodate that if we used all of our resources wisely. That includes nuclear which makes all of your green enviro wacko shit useless.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 16, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



Er..... no, not at all. But hey, you just go on the attack. 

If you were to walk into a dark room and someone said, well, there could be a giant hole in the middle, or a watch worth $1 million, what would do? Just run in and take the watch?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 16, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



Fukushima, Chernobyl and all the others Nuclear and radiation accidents and incidents - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia see here.

Nuclear is clean but causes potential problems that go beyond bad. 

I'm not necessarily opposed to nuclear, however it's not the solution to all our problems. Renewable energy is the only way forwards.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 16, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



Too Funny..

As a scientist I would light a match to see what was there. I would use empirical evidence to determine what course of action to take.  Climate Alarmists would just seal up the door even if it meant they would starve to death.  they would believe it wasn't worth the risk without any evidence to support their belief. This is where climate science is today, they dont know yet they want to kill millions by doing something stupid.

We've already played this game with DDT, Fluorocarbons (the ozone hole that they have now confirmed is regulated by the solar magnetic waves hitting the earth), and other things that liberals banned outright without a shred of proof.  How many millions died because of the DDT ban?

It is you folks who jump the shark every time..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 16, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



Proper placement, proper construction, Proper recycling of the waste (over 93% is recyclable in newer constructed plants), and basic smarts in the use were not present in those disasters.  The latest generation plants have internal fail safes which scram the plants without the need for outside power to cool them. Its called redundancy.  

Why do you fear science and leaps forward?


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 16, 2015)

OK, Im laughing...............

Don't the AGW k00ks consistently pronounce the "science is settled"???

The why are their collective heads exploding on this thread?


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 17, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > I've already asked the Global Warming zealots to spell out what their plan is to stop Climate Change. Still haven't gotten anything coherent out of em. But i'm patient, i'll give em another shot.
> ...



As the size of families in China and India decrease and incomes increase -- this will moderate itself. Pollution is a totally different issue. And if the Chinese have to chose right now between the abject poverty that USED to prevail there a couple decades ago and an increase in particulates -- you know which path is gonna get chosen. 

But all that is another topic..


----------



## IanC (Oct 17, 2015)

IanC said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> > Just because the increasing levels CO2 is the focus of scientist doesn't mean they believe it drives the climate, that's just stupid. They want to know what role it plays in the system but they don't actually know how the system works, hence the errors in their models predictions.
> ...




Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob
Governing Earth’s Temperature
Andrew A. Lacis,* Gavin A. Schmidt, David Rind, Reto A. Ruedy
Ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the single most important
climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth’s atmosphere. This is because CO2, like ozone, N2O, CH4,
and chlorofluorocarbons, does not condense and precipitate from the atmosphere at current
climate temperatures, whereas water vapor can and does. Noncondensing greenhouse gases,
which account for 25% of the total terrestrial greenhouse effect, thus serve to provide the stable
temperature structure that sustains the current levels of atmospheric water vapor and clouds via
feedback processes that account for the remaining 75% of the greenhouse effect. Without the
radiative forcing supplied by CO2 and the other noncondensing greenhouse gases, the terrestrial
greenhouse would collapse, plunging the global climate into an icebound Earth state.



straight from the NASA boys in the journal _Science. _I would say it is pretty obvious that they do indeed think CO2 drives the climate.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 17, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Too Funny..
> 
> As a scientist I would light a match to see what was there. I would use empirical evidence to determine what course of action to take.  Climate Alarmists would just seal up the door even if it meant they would starve to death.  they would believe it wasn't worth the risk without any evidence to support their belief. This is where climate science is today, they dont know yet they want to kill millions by doing something stupid.
> 
> ...



So, you're making some claims. 

You say you evidence to determine a course of action. What if you don't have all the evidence, then what? 

You talk about DDT, Fluorocarbons, so make your case then. You haven't. You claim to be a scientist yet all you've done is make an unsupported statement.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 17, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Why do I fear science? Could I not ask the same thing about climate change to you?

Why do I fear nuclear power stations that have gone wrong in the past? Er...... well... because they go wrong. Sure, better technology means safer power stations. But they're never going to be 100% safe all of the time. Things can go wrong with anything. 

Then again the US spends so much time and effort STOPPING countries like Iran getting this technology, even when they have massive pollution problems........


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 17, 2015)

skookerasbil said:


> OK, Im laughing...............
> 
> Don't the AGW k00ks consistently pronounce the "science is settled"???
> 
> The why are their collective heads exploding on this thread?



Wow, I mean, wow. Talking science and you get what sounds like first grade science students........


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 17, 2015)

IanC said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



I had forgotten about that. The empirical evidence shows most (if not all) of their assumptions false. Now alarmist choose to ignore this information and the fact that it has been discredited rather than change their religious dogma.

Kind of reminds me of a scene from Monty Pythons Quest for the Holy Grail...  Bring out the holy hand gernade...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 17, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



Talk about paranoid...

You do realize that nuclear power stations are far safer than air travel, walking, or falling off your chair and dieing..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 17, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



When a countries sole claim to fame is killing everyone else (INFIDELS) there is good reason to keep nuclear tech from them. Islam is NOT, I REPEAT *NOT* a religion of peace, the main religious tenant is conquer by force or kill your enemy. But that is for another thread.

I am going to laugh my ass off when liberals like yourself see gays and women taken to the street and beheaded or stoned to death because they embraced Sharia law which is Islams ONLY recognized government. These idiots are throwing away the US Constitution for mid-evil king/serf relationships where they live and die at the kings bidding.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 17, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



Climate Science as it stands today is ideology and not science.  Let me know when they give up the math, data, and methods for multidisciplinary review and theroy falsification.


----------



## Kosh (Oct 17, 2015)

Here is something fro the AW cut to read:

How a liberal vegan environmentalist made the switch from climate proponent to climate skeptic

My name is David Siegel. I’m not a climate expert; I’m a writer. Early in 2015, I became interested in climate science and decided to spend the better part of this year trying to learn what I could. It didn’t take long before it was clear that there isn’t likely going to be any catastrophic warming this century. What was clear is that skeptics are losing this battle, and I want to tell you why.

For thirty years, James Hansen and Al Gore have been building their PR machine along with David Fenton, the wizard of nonprofit PR. They understand that the messenger is more important than the message. People don’t easily change their minds. People get their opinions from “experts” and brand names like NASA, MIT, Harvard, TIME, The Daily Show, etc. Fenton knows the game is about credibility and repetition, not science. As long as we are trying to convince people with the facts, we will lose.

So I did my homework and wrote a 9,000-word essay aimed at liberals who have a voice, who have access to media, and who might take 30 minutes to educate themselves.

I submitted my piece to every liberal publication, from the LA Times to the Atlantic Monthly to National Geographic to Huffington Post and many more. They all turned it down. Now I’m launching it myself and hope you will read it and help spread the word.

I ask you to help get the word out through social media, links, and the press, to the liberal audience I’m going after. Links really help. If you can help reach Bill Gates, Jeff Skoll, Jon Stewart, George Clooney, and other influential liberals, I hope to help them understand that the science is not settled. I think this is the best way to tip the scales back to reasonable, impactful environmentalism. If you can help move it on Reddit, Voat, Quora, NewsVine, etc., I would appreciate that.

I’m going to ask people to leave comments here, rather than on my page, because I can’t manage the comment spam there. I will, however, read the comments here and will respond if I can.

My work is aimed at your liberal friends; please send them to read it.

Excerpt:

*What is your position on the climate-change debate?* What would it take to change your mind?

If the answer is _It would take a ton of evidence to change my mind, because my understanding is that the science is settled, and we need to get going on this important issue,_ that’s what I thought, too. This is my story.

More than thirty years ago, I became vegan because I believed it was healthier (it’s not), and I’ve stayed vegan because I believe it’s better for the environment (it is). I haven’t owned a car in ten years. I love animals; I’ll gladly fly halfway around the world to take photos of them in their natural habitats. I’m a Democrat: *I think governments play a key role in preserving our environment for the future in the most cost-effective way possible.*Over the years, I built a set of assumptions: that Al Gore was right about global warming, that he was the David going up against the industrial Goliath. In 1993, I even wrote a book about it.

Recently, a friend challenged those assumptions. At first, I was annoyed, because I thought the science really was settled. As I started to look at the data and read about climate science, I was surprised, then shocked. As I learned more, I changed my mind. I now think there probably is no climate crisis and that the focus on CO2 takes funding and attention from critical environmental problems. I’ll start by making ten short statements that should challenge your assumptions and then back them up with an essay.

*1* Weather is not climate. There are no studies showing a conclusive link between global warming and increased frequency or intensity of storms, droughts, floods, cold or heat waves.

*2* Natural variation in weather and climate is tremendous. Most of what people call “global warming” is natural.

*3* There is tremendous uncertainty as to how the climate really works. Climate models are not yet skillful; predictions are unresolved.

*4* New research shows that fluctuations in energy from the sun correlate very strongly with changes in earth’s temperature, at both long and short time scales.

*5* CO2 has very little to do with it. All the decarbonization we can do isn’t going to change the climate much.

*6* There is no such thing as “carbon pollution.” Carbon dioxide is coming out of your nose right now; it is not a poisonous gas. CO2 concentrations in previous eras have been many times higher than they are today.

*7* Sea level will probably continue to rise, naturally and slowly. Researchers have found no link between CO2 and sea level.

*8* The Arctic experiences natural variation as well, with some years warmer earlier than others. Polar bear numbers are up, not down. They have more to do with hunting permits than CO2*.

*9* No one has shown any damage to reef or marine systems. Additional man-made CO2 will not likely harm oceans, reef systems, or marine life. Fish are mostly threatened by people who eat them.

*10* The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and others are pursuing a political agenda and a PR campaign, not scientific inquiry. There’s a tremendous amount of trickery going on under the surface*.

Could this possibly be right? Is it heresy, or critical thinking — or both? If I’ve upset or confused you, let me guide you through my journey

You’ll find it at: *www.climatecurious.com.*


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 18, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Define "safe", nuclear power stations cause less deaths than other things, depending on where and how you get your uranium. However, if there is a disaster, then the disaster could be far, far worse than any of these other things. 

Paranoid? I remember Chernobyl, I remember Fukushima, I remember quite a few of these. In Japan would you expect these problems with people having to leave their homes because their area is radiated?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 18, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



The US's main claim to fame is killing everyone too (people sitting on top of oil usually). 

Only one country has dropped a nuclear bomb on top of civilians. That's the US. 

Islam isn't a religion of peace, and the US isn't a country of peace......


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 18, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...




And climate denial is what? Sticking your head in the sand and pretend nothing is happening? 

You know, I looked into the whole thing, and I'm pretty convinced something bad is going to happen.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 18, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


Silly ass. Try buying private insurance for a nuclear power station. You can buy that for air travel, walking, or falling off your chair and dying. But you cannot buy private insurance for a nuclear power plant. Care to guess what the reason is for that?


----------



## paulitician (Oct 18, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > There is no scientific evidence supporting the belief a warmer climate will spell the end of humanity. All evidence available supports the opposite. Talk to me when you guys start pushing your 'Global Cooling' scam. The planet getting colder could be somewhat of a concern.
> ...



Climate Change happens. It's always gonna happen. It's gonna happen no matter how much Government taxes you and takes control of your life. There's no need to panic and live in fear of Climate Change. The 'Global Warming Boogeyman ain't gonna get ya.


----------



## paulitician (Oct 18, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > I've already asked the Global Warming zealots to spell out what their plan is to stop Climate Change. Still haven't gotten anything coherent out of em. But i'm patient, i'll give em another shot.
> ...



Pollution and 'Global Warming' are separate issues. We're talking about Climate Change. You guys are the ones doing all the fear mongering over it. So it's on you to tell us how you're gonna stop Climate Change. I'm a fair-minded person, i'll listen.


----------



## paulitician (Oct 18, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



More CO2 will not spell the end of humanity. Might get a little warmer and wetter, but humanity will survive. All the hysterical fear mongering is totally unnecessary.


----------



## paulitician (Oct 18, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



Spot On. A massive World Government takeover isn't the answer. Climate Change is gonna happen no matter how much you tax and control the People.


----------



## paulitician (Oct 18, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



It's an agenda being advanced by World Government Globalists. Fear is the most valuable tool used to push agendas. Humans fear the end. It's programmed into their DNA. If you scare em enough, they'll likely go along with anything or anyone claiming to be their 'Savior.'


----------



## mamooth (Oct 18, 2015)

paulitician said:


> It's an agenda being advanced by World Government Globalists.



No, there's no VastSecretGlobalSocialistConspiracy. You're just a loony. And a boring one. After you've seen one right-wing-extremist-crank political cultist, you've seen them all.

Speaking of cults, how's your DearLeaderPaul doing in the primaries? It must be rough for you, seeing your cult messiah getting rejected like that even by the other crank conservatives. No wonder you're lashing out in such incoherent rage.

And speaking of cranks, Dave Evans, author of the crank article referenced in the OP, has finally stopped referring to himself as a "rocket scientist" on his web page and resume. It looks like the public shaming finally convinced him to stop lying.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 18, 2015)

paulitician said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



I'm not talking climate change. I'm talking man made climate change.

With climate change you know, more or less, what you're getting. We should, in theory, be going through a cooling period. We can deal with this, we've developed enough to be able to cope with this for the most part even if it gets quite cold in a lot of places.

With man made climate change we don't know what we're getting. We don't know the impact what we're putting into the atmosphere will have.

The old line's coming out that "well it was hot before with loads of CO2 and life did well", but life isn't necessarily human life. Also there are other potential things that could happen that we don't know about. And if it goes tits over arse, we're not going to be able to pull back and stop it from happening.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 18, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



The left wit morons claims... what a pant load of crap.. you really do live in fantasy land..


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 18, 2015)

paulitician said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



Will it? 

Prove it.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 18, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Great response. Sort of thing I'd expect from a 12 year old.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 18, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



I have denied nothing!  It is you who deny science by stifling debate, lying, manipulating the data and hiding the data, methods, and empirical evidence.

The climate most certainly changes and has for over 450 billion years.  The ludicrous stance of the alarmist, that man can influence the system by adding 120ppm of CO2 when the earth has clearly not self destructed when those same levels were 7,000ppm for millions of years and the temp did not runaway, is the problem.  Empirical EVIDENCE shows your meme fraudulent. Yet you persist. One must ask what it is you have to gain by pushing something so obviously wrong?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 18, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



You just wrote a post that was just insults and attacks. When you learn to grow up, then maybe we can talk.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 18, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



First and fore most, empirical evidence shows that water vapor is NOT COUPLED to CO2. There is ZERO correlation or causation by empirical evidence. (the alarmist failed climate models are incorrect mathematical constructs, (Funny how we got back to this), that have NO PREDICTIVE POWER AND FAIL 100% of the time)

The earths history shows there is no "tipping point" because there is no coupling of water vapor to CO2. The empirical evidence shows that we get only 1/2 of the warming that we would expect from CO2 in the open atmosphere because water vapor acts as a negative forcing. (just take a CO2 content reading before and after a rain storm and you will understand why).

Again, your fear is misplaced as is your pseudoscience of CAGW.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 18, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



Funny;

Your posts are CAGW talking points and lack cognitive thought.. I could say the same to you..


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 18, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



I think you're for the ignore list. You seem to half want to debate, and the other half just insult. I don't tolerate people who feel the need to insult.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 18, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



I posted verifiable fact. Yet you take it as being an insult?  That doesn't say much for your credibility.  Just like Old Rocks and every other warmer here, when the facts disprove you, you take your ball and run home with hurt feelings.  I am sorry I hurt your little feelings, but the facts are what they are and I wont stop posting them because your feelings get hurt. That's the thing about science, it doesn't care about your feelings, it depends on facts and verifiable information.

You see this is a tool of the alarmist to stifle debate. You dont want me to repeat that your side refuses to give up their Data, Methods, and Math for review. You would rather they be allowed to kill the debate (consensus-science is settled bull shit) than be truthful.. That makes you no better than they are.


----------



## paulitician (Oct 19, 2015)

mamooth said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > It's an agenda being advanced by World Government Globalists.
> ...



Thanks for the kind words, but those doing the hysterical fear mongering are World Government Globalists. However, their massive World Government takeover isn't gonna end Climate Change. Beating the People up by over-taxing em and seizing complete control their lives, isn't the answer.

Climate Change is gonna happen. We'll just have to deal with it as a species. And that's that. The endless scare tactics have gotten very old. It's time to turn the page on the Great Global Warming Swindle.


----------



## BlindBoo (Oct 19, 2015)

IanC said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > BlindBoo said:
> ...



Sounds more like they theorize the non-condencing GHG's have a regulating effect or they help keep the equilibrium of the climate not that they drive the climate.


----------



## paulitician (Oct 19, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



Well, you go ahead and live in fear of the Global Warming Boogeyman. I won't stop you. That's your call. However i will try and stop you from allowing Government to over-tax and seize complete control of my life. I'd rather take my chances with the Global Warming Boogeyman than with you guys. That's how i feel.


----------



## paulitician (Oct 19, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



We've already covered it. You guys dong all the fear mongering, haven't proven that life can't or doesn't survive during periods of high CO2 levels and warm climates. Your fear mongering is completely unnecessary.

You're using fear to push a particular political agenda. If you're gonna push your 'Global Warming Apocalypse' agenda, the burden's on you to show how it's fact. Relying on your word or having 'Faith', just isn't good enough.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 19, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


funny stuff Frank.  so a question; if there is no impact, is there a probability of control? BTW, did you look up the word 'influence'?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 19, 2015)

paulitician said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



Because no one is saying LIFE can't survive during this time. Whether humans can is a completely different matter. 

You're ignoring the fact that when things go out of control, then there are problems.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 19, 2015)

jc456 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




Who's Frank. And what are you going on about?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 19, 2015)

paulitician said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



So you'd rather fuck up the planet for your own gains, and screw everyone else?


----------



## paulitician (Oct 19, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



What's your solution to ending Climate Change? I'm fair-minded, i'm willing to listen.


----------



## paulitician (Oct 19, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



What's 'fucking up the planet?' What do you mean? And who are you to force others to go along with your 'Global Warming Apocalypse' agenda? As i said, you can go ahead and live in fear of the Global Warming Boogeyman. I won't stop you. You make that decision. Just don't think you're gonna force more Government oppression on others. We're not all gonna go along with that. Sorry, but that's just the way it is.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 19, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


what exactly are we ignoring?  What is out of control?  Do you know what will be out of control?  You have a crystal ball then?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 19, 2015)

paulitician said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...


dude I've asked dozens of times and to date, no answer given.  They don't even know what problem to solve, so having a solution to that is impossible.  But the sky is falling in their worlds, that's all.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 19, 2015)

jc456 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



Nothing is out of control yet, hopefully. 

However, if you go into an unknown situation, do you A) jump in enthusiastically and hope for the best or B) go in cautiously and do it carefully so you can pull back if something goes wrong?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 19, 2015)

paulitician said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



I never said I wanted to end climate change. 

What I said was that I want humans to stop polluting the Earth. To become closer to the planet we are on, rather than to be continually trying to make it worse. 

How? Reduce our dependence on stuff produced by oil/coal etc etc. 

Such as: Various places have put a price on plastic bags from supermarkets etc. Why do we even need plastic bags. We have way too much packaging for our own good. Why not change to a system of containers, where things come in renewable containers? 

Having things like vehicles which are more energy efficient. How many people really need their car to be as gas guzzling as it is? Not many! 

Using more renewable energy. 

Some countries are doing this already, like Germany. The US has a certain amount of renewable energy but has the potential for more. Countries like India would probably benefit massively from the development of such technology. Without the leading countries developing this sort of thing, the poorer countries will be reliant on polluting energy. 


So much stuff comes out of the right in the US about responsibility. Oh, if someone commits a crime, it's the criminal who is responsible. Someone said the take responsibility seriously. 
Where does responsibility come into play when it concerns the environment and the state of the planet? Seemingly the right all of a sudden forget what responsibility means.

We have a responsibility to animals, nature, the planet itself. But it gets ignored.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 19, 2015)

paulitician said:


> What's 'fucking up the planet?' What do you mean? And who are you to force others to go along with your 'Global Warming Apocalypse' agenda? As i said, you can go ahead and live in fear of the Global Warming Boogeyman. I won't stop you. You make that decision. Just don't think you're gonna force more Government oppression on others. We're not all gonna go along with that. Sorry, but that's just the way it is.



Humans are fucking up this planet. 

Who am I to force? I'm forcing people? No, I'm not. I'm on here trying to convince people. 

But who are you to force your pollution, your increase in CO2 and other greenhouse gases on me? You literally are forcing this. I breathe this shit.

You won't go along with it, well, unless of course the govt decides you're wrong. How is it oppression? You're oppressed because there's more renewable energy? Jeez, you sound like one of those guys who lives in the woods with his three wives who are his daughters waiting for the day the govt turns up so he can shoot them all.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 19, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > What's 'fucking up the planet?' What do you mean? And who are you to force others to go along with your 'Global Warming Apocalypse' agenda? As i said, you can go ahead and live in fear of the Global Warming Boogeyman. I won't stop you. You make that decision. Just don't think you're gonna force more Government oppression on others. We're not all gonna go along with that. Sorry, but that's just the way it is.
> ...



Totally clueless..

CO2 is not a pollutant.  If it is, why dont YOU stop emitting it as you place more CO2 into the area around you than we do globally.

You rant and rave about Government knows best, but you refuse to see the lies they are telling you and you refuse to look into the real science of the matter.

It appears your the real science denier..


----------



## Wyatt earp (Oct 19, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > I've already asked the Global Warming zealots to spell out what their plan is to stop Climate Change. Still haven't gotten anything coherent out of em. But i'm patient, i'll give em another shot.
> ...



You do know technically oil is a renewable energy...

Besides they have been saying that since the late 1800's

Running Out Of Oil - Science Questions, from the Naked Scientists


Will the World Ever Run Out of Oil?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 19, 2015)

jc456 said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



The problem to solve is the amount of pollution we pump out. Not just into the air, into the sea too. There's so much rubbish floating around in the sea it's ridiculous. It's destroying our eco systems. The creatures in the sea are dying out. We're damaging everything, changing everything, and we don't know the impact this will have.

If sea life dies, what impact will this have on the planet? Well, it might not take in CO2, if it doesn't take in CO2, then what? Well the air then takes the brunt of this. How much CO2 does the ocean take in? I don't know, but it could be a lot more CO2 than is in the air right now. 
If temperatures change then many animals might die out, it might destroy the eco system on the land. If we can't fertilize our plants, we will struggle to grow food. No food will lead to starvation, war, all sorts of things.

This is one potential issue. It might happen. It might not happen. Are you willing to take that risk?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 19, 2015)

bear513 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



Technically it is. In reality it's not, because we're using it up faster than it's being produced. 

At some point we'll probably run out. When the time comes we'll either be prepared for it, or not. 

The intelligent way forwards would be that we're ready for it. Or we never care because we've replaced oil long before it runs out.

The reason why oil is still relevant is because the oil companies have done a fine job of trying to make themselves relevant, and stopping renewable energy being a legitimate source of power. And like most things in the US, if people throw enough money at advertising, then the people will believe what they're told to believe, and then go off shouting about how this is taking their liberty away and all this nonsense.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 19, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



You dont know the difference between pollution and having gas...  Basing your decision making process on "it might happen but we dont know how it will" is beyond STUPID! You really have soaked up too much kookaid.

You have no idea how the earths oceans uptake CO2 or how other systems uptake CO2, but we do know that higher levels of CO2 feed plants and increase not only plant size but lower water usage allowing plants to survive in more arid regions. 

You have taken in a whole lot of left wing crap because you have no critical thinking skills.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Oct 19, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...




I am going to have to look up your claim that oil companies are trying to stop renewables, I think they are more concerned with how low a barrel of oil is


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 19, 2015)

bear513 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



Oil Companies are doing the research and pumping in billions of dollars. His rant is nothing more than left wing, low information voter rhetoric.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Oct 19, 2015)

Wow I never knew this about BP

Y

Margaret Thatcher had put climate change on the international political map with a landmark speech in 1988, the company was doing ground-breaking work into photovoltaic solar panels, wave power and domestic energy efficiency as part of a wider drive to understand how greenhouse gas emissions could be curbed.

Two houses on the site at Sunbury were used in experiments. One was retrofitted with special insulation, ground source heat pumps and other systems which have now become mainstream.

“All the reports that we produced were filed away and contain a huge mass of information. We had been researching alternative energies for years going back to the early 1980s,” said one senior scientist involved in the BP programme who did not want to be named.

°Snip°

BP pumped billions of pounds into low-carbon technology and green energy over a number of decades but gradually retired the programme to focus almost exclusively on its fossil fuel business, the Guardian has established.

At one stage the company, whoseannual general meeting is in London on Thursday, was spending in-house around $450m (£300m) a year on research alone - the equivalent of $830m today.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 19, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > What's 'fucking up the planet?' What do you mean? And who are you to force others to go along with your 'Global Warming Apocalypse' agenda? As i said, you can go ahead and live in fear of the Global Warming Boogeyman. I won't stop you. You make that decision. Just don't think you're gonna force more Government oppression on others. We're not all gonna go along with that. Sorry, but that's just the way it is.
> ...



OK Moron,  How are we fucking up the planet with CO2?

Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000.  Below each is  the rate of warming.






The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade

This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC and is near or is the Natural Variation rate.

The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade.

This means that the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION..






So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2. During the time they claim runway rise it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise. (Not to mention the last 19 years of no temp rise while CO2 continued showing absolutely no correlation or causation)

SO tell us how you ascertained that CO2 was was causing warming, or catastrophic warming...   The empirical evidence calls you evidence deficient and one who has no empirical facts.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 19, 2015)

bear513 said:


> Wow I never knew this about BP
> 
> Y
> 
> ...



This is why we dont believe low information rhetoric voters. It took you all of 30 seconds and you used google... Information easily found and yet these misinformation and lies persist. Sad that so many are duped by these people.


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 19, 2015)

bear513 said:


> I am going to have to look up your claim that oil companies are trying to stop renewables, I think they are more concerned with how low a barrel of oil is



To the contrary -- at one time-- not too long ago -- BP Petrol was the world's largest systems installer of large-scale solar. Chevron likewise had huge investments in wind/solar and Total (france) STILL has large stakes in solar companies. They've learned the limitations of wind/solar and are largely dropping back out.. 

*Frigid needs to remember that oil companies DONT COMPETE directly with "renewables".* Because hardly any oil is used to generate electricity. This is a MAJOR error in the thinking of a LOT of eco-nauts... They don't understand the make-up of the energy market. Or how things really work..


----------



## Wyatt earp (Oct 19, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...




Dude you are wrong Oil companies since the 80's were pouring billions into alternative energy, not trying to stop it, they are in the business to make a profit for Christ sake, what I could find so far they couldn't make a profit at it.


Forbes


Wrong link



Alternative Energy And Big Oil: Poor Returns Versus `Lies'


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 20, 2015)

bear513 said:


> Dude you are wrong Oil companies since the 80's were pouring billions into alternative energy, not trying to stop it, they are in the business to make a profit for Christ sake, what I could find so far they couldn't make a profit at it.
> 
> 
> Forbes
> ...




Yeah, I've seen all that. It's pretty funny really. They used alternative energy as a sort of "hey guys, look, we're the nice guys", complete bull really. 

Basically they aren't putting much money into it at all. 

Big Oil's Big Lies About Alternative Energy | Rolling Stone

"
Big Oil's Big Lies About Alternative Energy"

Here's one such article that talks about the lies of the oil industry. 

"In April, BP announced that it is selling off its entire $3.1 billion U.S. wind energy business – including 16 farms spread across nine states – as "part of a continuing effort to become a more focused oil and gas company," according to a company spokesperson. Indeed, though it famously rebranded itself "Beyond Petroleum" in 2000, BP also exited the solar energy business back in 2011. Today, its alternative energy investments are limited to biofuels and a lone wind farm in the Netherlands."

I read this article before, but didn't have time to respond. 

I found it again through Forbes

Alternative Energy And Big Oil: Poor Returns Versus `Lies'

This article hits back, sort of.

"Many plowed millions of dollars into alternative energy programs during the past decade, but those investments have generated little, if any, return. "

Firstly, "many millions of dollars" equates to almost nothing of the company. These are companies that make billions. So, these investments have generated little, if any return. Sure, oil companies are about money. I understand. Having a part of a company that doesn't make money isn't necessarily good for business. So they've pulled back.

However the future is going to be renewables, but the largest polluting companies in the US and Europe are the ones who are pulling back from greener energy. Maybe one day green energy will be where the money is. These companies are, as with many in capitalism, thinking about share prices today and tomorrow. Not in 20 years time, 50 years time etc. This could be their downfall in the future. 

But here's the thing. The oil companies have not only been pulling back from renewable resources. 

Oil Giants Gassed Out On Renewable Energy | OilPrice.com

"
*Oil Giants Gassed Out On Renewable Energy"*

The Price of Oil: Blocking Alternatives - Oil Change International

"In the United States and most industrialized countries, the federal government still strongly favors the oil industry with subsidiesthat block clean energy alternatives."

So, the US govt, the ones who make millions out of the oil industry, scratch the back of the oil industry that scratches their back. 

"Estimates of the value of U.S. federal subsidies to the domestic oil industry alone (not coal) range from roughly $6 billion a year, to an amazing $39 billion annually. Internationally, subsidies are even more difficult to estimate but they are likely more than $775 billion annually (and perhaps as much as a trillion), of which at least $100 billion are production subsidies – going straight to fossil fuel corporations."

You have to ask why companies who make so much money are being given money. The right love the oil industry and cry foul when people get given hand outs, and yet the oil companies seem to escape from this outcry. 

BP sabotage of green energy

"But almost all of the technology was sold off and much of the research locked away in a private corporate archive."

So, they did research, then.... didn't use it.... why?

BP pays United States anti-climate science senator

"Can there be any doubt in anyone’s mind that BP (British Petroleum) is currently at work on a new ad campaign to try and convince the public that they actually care about the environment and have a conscience about the environmental nightmare they let loose along the Gulf Coast?"

With an oil disaster, like the one BP were involved in, they spend millions (more than they spend on green energy) on advertising themselves to look good. It's all rubbish really, but in the US people are easily bought by good advertising as we all know.

"Jim Inhofe, a Republican senator from Oklahoma who has tirelessly campaigned against calls for a carbon tax and challenges the overwhelming consensus on climate change, received $10,000 (£6,700) from BP’s political action committee (PAC)."

Why are BP going around giving money to people who do their work for them? Most people who work for a company expect to be paid to do so. However should Congressmen really be paid to do the work of big oil companies to make sure people like denying man made climate change? 

if they're sooooo interested in green energy, why would they do this?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 20, 2015)

bear513 said:


> Wow I never knew this about BP
> 
> Y
> 
> ...



How much of this money came from subsidies?


----------



## rdean (Oct 20, 2015)

The nature of science is to constantly update as new discoveries roll in.  Look at evolution.  While the underlying theory remains unchanged, the facts are constantly changing.  If Republicans didn't think science was a faith, they would know that.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 20, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


you didn't answer what we as humans are ignoring.  What are we ignoring.  Since you have no crystal ball then you have zero ability to predict the future.  You also have zero evidence to even walk near making that statement.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 20, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


so polluting the earth is a completely different subject than climate change.  you know this right?  Please let me know that you know this, if you can't then you have lost even more respect in a climate discussion.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 20, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > What's 'fucking up the planet?' What do you mean? And who are you to force others to go along with your 'Global Warming Apocalypse' agenda? As i said, you can go ahead and live in fear of the Global Warming Boogeyman. I won't stop you. You make that decision. Just don't think you're gonna force more Government oppression on others. We're not all gonna go along with that. Sorry, but that's just the way it is.
> ...


CO2 is bad?  what the f are you saying?  You have no clue to what you write.  holy crap.  Greater CO2 is great for the world, and there is evidence to that.  Pollution is not CO2 so I still have no idea what you think you're discussing, pollution or climate?  Can you clarify for all the kids in the class?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 20, 2015)

jc456 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



I clearly stated what we're ignoring. "You're ignoring the fact that when things go out of control, then there are problems." See, I wrote it there.

So, if you don't have a crystal ball you can't predict the future? Are you nuts or something or have you been drinking?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 20, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


what is expected to go out of control and why?  you have been as clear as mud.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 20, 2015)

jc456 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We know the impact of greenhouse gases on the planet. 

You're saying CO2 is great for the world. Yeah, if your view is that without human beings the world is a better place.

CO2 is part of pollution. 

http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/pollution-overview/

The National Geographic says "Carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, is the main pollutant that is warming Earth. "

So, the National Geographic says CO2 is a pollutant, you say it isn't. Who would I believe......? Not difficult is it, really?

What we're talking about, this for those who are a little slow, is MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE caused by POLLUTION emitted from HUMAN ACTION. It's not that hard, is it?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 20, 2015)

jc456 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Look, if you can't understand what I've written, you might as well not bother. When you've learnt English, come back.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 20, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


*Humans are fucking up this planet.*

How are humans doing that?  explain?

*
CO2 is part of pollution.*
you know humans exhale CO2 right?  Holy shite.

*You're saying CO2 is great for the world. Yeah, if your view is that without human beings the world is a better place*

exactly, plants and trees grow much better meaning more food for everyone.  Bigger plants more oxygen!!!!

Why is it you want humans dead?

*CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We know the impact of greenhouse gases on the planet. *

why don't you post up an experiment that proves this point.  Please go for it.


----------



## paulitician (Oct 20, 2015)

jc456 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



So much hysterical fear. It's sad.


----------



## paulitician (Oct 20, 2015)

jc456 said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



I've already asked for the Warming zealots to tell us what their plan is to stop Climate Change. Haven't gotten anything out of em yet. My guess is that it's a massive One World Government takeover. Oppressive Taxation and complete control of the People. But count me out on that. I'll take my chances with the Global Warming Boogeyman.


----------



## paulitician (Oct 20, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



See where you're headed? More & more Government oppression and control. Where does it end? And we all wanna see less pollution, but that's not Climate Change.


----------



## paulitician (Oct 20, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



More Government taxing and controlling the People is their solution. The solution is worse than the 'problem' in my opinion. I'd rather take my chances with the Global Warming Boogeyman than with the warming cult.


----------



## paulitician (Oct 20, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



The Apocalypse fear mongering has gotten old. You guys over-played your hand. The People are fatigued. And your solutions are worse than the 'problems.' Some of us are choosing to not live in fear of End-Times. I suggest you start doing the same. Life really is short.


----------



## paulitician (Oct 20, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



Don't bother, the Warming zealots will just move the goal posts. First it was 'We're all gonna die from Global Warming', now it's 'We're all gonna die from Climate Change.' Next it's gonna be 'We're all gonna die from Plastic.' It'll always be something. They want their massive One World Government takeover. And they'll use any fear mongering tactic they can to achieve that.

The World Government Globalists are just preying on human nature. Humans have a natural inclination to fear 'End-Times.' They truly fear their inevitable demise. It's all about fear. But the bottom line is, their solutions are far worse than their concocted 'problems.' Personally, i'm going with Freedom & Liberty. I value my freedom much more than i fear a Global Warming Boogeyman.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 20, 2015)

jc456 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



How are humans fucking up the planet?

Where do I start? Destroying the oceans. 

http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-marine-habitat-destruction/

Outlook:  Human's Impact on the Oceans

"In fact, evidence of humans can be found all over the oceans, even in the most remote polar areas, in the form of floating trash. The main areas of human impact can be divided into those related to ocean pollution, habitat destruction, and the introduction of alien species."

Destruction of coral reefs, floating trash, killing of species of fish, 






Great Pacific garbage patch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Destruction of the rain forests which provide oxygen and take in CO2. 

http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/deforestation-overview/

"Deforestation is clearing Earth's forests on a massive scale, often resulting in damage to the quality of the land. Forests still cover about 30 percent of the world’s land area, but swaths the size of Panama are lost each and every year."

"The world’s rain forests could completely vanish in a hundred years at the current rate of deforestation."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080125100314.htm

"Geologists from the University of Portsmouth are proposing that humankind has so changed the earth that it has brought about an end to one epoch of earth’s history and marked the start of another. They believe that human dominance has so physically altered the earth that the Holocene epoch has ended and we have entered a new epoch - the Anthropocene."

"They examined phenomena such as changes in the patterns of sediment erosion and deposition, major disturbances to the carbon cycle and global temperature, ocean acidification and wholesale changes to the world’s plants and animals."

I could go on all day, I don't have time. 

CO2 is produced naturally. This isn't what we're talking about. Everything that exists on the planet was, at one point, NATURAL. Oil is natural. A plastic bag floating in the ocean and killing animals is not natural. CO2 from animals is natural. CO2 from a coal power station is not. 

You understand that we're talking MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE here right? And that the impact of man on the Earth includes things like extra CO2 being pumped in the air which is CHANGING the climate from the natural cycle to an unnatural cycle, right?

I'm sure you can figure out what CO2 does as a greenhouse gas for yourself. This is something quite basic within this topic. I'd have thought we'd be able to get beyond that. Also, no time right now, I'm off the internet for many hours.


----------



## paulitician (Oct 20, 2015)

jc456 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



We're all bad. We wanna die. We're ignoring the impending Apocalypse. All part of their fear mongering agenda. And once you call Bullshit on em, they'll just move the goal posts. 'Global Warming today, Ice Age tomorrow, etc etc...

The reality is, their solutions are far worse than their perceived 'problems,' So i'm gonna go ahead and take my chances with the Global Warming Boogeyman. Bring on the warmth!


----------



## paulitician (Oct 20, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



You still haven't adequately articulated your solutions to Climate Change.


----------



## paulitician (Oct 20, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



Greenhouses are not harmful to life. In fact, it's the exact opposite. More CO2 doesn't spell the end. Your premise is all wrong. So the rest of your fear mongering argument can't be taken seriously.


----------



## mamooth (Oct 20, 2015)

Check it out. Paulitician is absolutely obsessed with his fear mongering. He won't stop shrieking until everyone is as hysterical as he is about the phantom socialists who are all out to get him.

Frigid, trying to reach him with logic is pointless, as you're talking to a TrueBeliever. He wasn't reasoned into his beliefs, so he can't be reasoned out of them. Such people are addicted to the emotional warm fuzzies that their cult membership brings them, and like any addict, they'll have to hit rock bottom before they want to recover.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 20, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Dude you are wrong Oil companies since the 80's were pouring billions into alternative energy, not trying to stop it, they are in the business to make a profit for Christ sake, what I could find so far they couldn't make a profit at it.
> ...



Too funny;  A laundry list of bull shit from left wing conspiracy kook sources..  Inhofe wants SCIENCE to be done on this subject and throw out the dam political pseudoscience that has created this huge lie.. You got problems with real facts getting in the way of your agenda?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 20, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



EPIC FAIL...

Prove CO2 is messing up anything... I have already posted the empirical evidence that shows your Bull Shit a lie. Refute the empirical evidence or STFU!


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 20, 2015)

paulitician said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



Oppression and control. Er..... What? You sound like someone just shouting off words they know might hit a cord, even though people don't know. 

It's like shouting Communist to try and nullify someone's argument. It's boring, not worthy of debate in the slightest.


----------



## paulitician (Oct 20, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



Where will it end? Personally, i don't want Government in my life more than it already is. So like i said, i'll take my chances with the Global Warming Boogeyman rather than with you folks. I value my Freedom & Liberty far more than i fear a Global Warming Boogeyman.


----------



## paulitician (Oct 20, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



You provided nothing but vague sanctimonious platitudes as your 'solutions' to Climate Change. It is what it is.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 20, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...




Poor little libtard...  How about you address the empirical evidence I posted?  You know those pesky facts that you hate so much... Right here--->  Scientist discovers errors in global warming model | Page 54 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 20, 2015)

Crick said:


> Than you're an idiot and, in a democracy, a hazard to the rest of us.  Ignorance is the enemy and you are filled with it.



Your ignorance and ideology is on display every day for us to behold.. Thanks for pointing out your own flaws and those of your like minded hive mentality..

The real danger to the US is environmentalism wacko's who push the Socialist agenda by using false claims and outright fabrications.  

We see the hazard you and your ilk are, trust me we know!


----------



## jc456 (Oct 20, 2015)

Crick said:


> Than you're an idiot and, in a democracy, a hazard to the rest of us.  Ignorance is the enemy and you are filled with it.


Naw, we've been waiting on the evidence to support your claim and still nothing


----------



## westwall (Oct 21, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...









Every group that hopes to profit either monetarily, or politically has claimed that CO2 is a "pollutant".  What is not in question is that EVERY LIVING THING EXHALES CO2.  What is also not in question is the fact that CO2 is the bottom of the food chain.  All life on this planet ultimately derives from CO2 so the claim that it is a pollutant is absurd.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 21, 2015)

westwall said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




Listen, the Sun is great, without the sun most life on the Earth would not exist. Are you saying this is PROOF that the Sun doesn't cause skin cancer which can kill people?

I'm sorry, I'm not going to listen to crap arguments that claim because humans exhale CO2 that CO2 in excessive quantities isn't a bad thing for the atmosphere. This isn't grade one and I'm not an idiot.


----------



## IanC (Oct 21, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



CO2 is not pollution. Some of the other byproducts of combustion are pollutants but not CO2. It's plant food. You are confused by guilt by association.

CO2 levels through the next several doublings is well within the natural range of CO2 historically. Not a pollutant.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 21, 2015)

IanC said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Well you must be one of the few people who think that CO2 isn't pollution. It is, by the way, you're just deluding yourself.

A plastic bag in a supermarket isn't pollution. But in the pacific ocean it is. 

CO2 is in the air, in it's normal amounts it isn't pollution. When there's too much of it, it is pollution. It's a simple concept, one that high school kids are often able to pick up and understand. Maybe once you've graduated from high school you'll understand. Maybe.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 21, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


ok going with that, what is too much?  Do you have any knowledge on how much is too much?  Seems like you're off course captain.  You should first learn how much is too much if you wish to make that claim.  BTW, CO2 is not a pollutant.  We exhale it.  comprehende?


----------



## IanC (Oct 21, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...




hahahahahaha. give some thought as to what the normal range of CO2 is. for different areas, different seasons, etc. the 120 ppm increase over the last coupla hundred years is nothing. but the plants sure like it.

graduate high school! hahahahahahaha


----------



## paulitician (Oct 21, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



After 'Global Warming' it'll be the coming 'Ice Age', and so and so on...

Fear is an age-old tactic used to get the Sheeple in line. In this case, Climate Change supposedly spells the end of humanity. The World Government Globalists are just preying on human's natural fear of the end. Climate Change happens, and always will happen. The hysterical fear isn't necessary... unless you're pushing a particular agenda.


----------



## westwall (Oct 21, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...








No, you clearly ARE an idiot.  If you go into a room that is 100% CO2 you will die of asphyxiation.  However, we are talking about a concentration of CO2 that is so low that it takes incredibly sensitive machines to even detect its presence.  What is also a certainty is the desperate attempts by the crap scientists you listen too to ascribe every single bad thing that occurs in the world to this essential gas.

There is ZERO evidence that anything they claim will occur.  ZERO.  There is ample evidence that supports the exact opposite of what they claim however.  You need only open your eyes and read the history.  But idiots don't do that.  Do they...


----------



## jc456 (Oct 21, 2015)

westwall said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


And it's because at 100% CO2, there is zero oxygen.  Guess what a human needs to survive?  dah, Oxygen?


----------



## paulitician (Oct 21, 2015)

The 'Greenhouse Effect' itself, is nothing to fear. Even if the Warming zealots are 100% correct, animals and plants will survive higher CO2 levels and a warmer climate just fine. Their whole 'Global Warming Boogeyman' premise begins to crumble under closer examination. 

And that's why they're beginning to distance themselves from the 'Global Warming' fear mongering. They've moved instead to 'Climate Change' fear mongering. Covering their butts now.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Oct 21, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



How much is to much?

According to this article in the dino era Their was 2 times~5 times more C02 in the atmosphere then today

Dinosaur Era Had 5 Times Today's CO2

According to our New C02 satellite the hot spots for C02 is in the southern hemisphere 


NASA Satellite Sends Back Most Detailed CO2 View Ever : DNews


----------



## westwall (Oct 21, 2015)

jc456 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...








You know that.  I know that.  I truly doubt weirdo understands the concept.  The whole notion that CO2 is a pollutant is laughable.  The idiots pushing that narrative clearly have no clue of the can of worms that will be released if this classification is allowed to stand.


----------



## jillian (Oct 21, 2015)

jc456 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



the computer scientist referred to in the O/P is not a climate scientist... and has already been debunked.

Australian scientist discovers ERRORS in Global Warming models that COMPLETELY undermine climate theory!!! » The Right Scoop -


----------



## jc456 (Oct 21, 2015)

westwall said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


I actually posted it for his benefit, not yours. Your post was available for the reply button and I used that.  and yes, you are factually correct as usual.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 21, 2015)

jillian said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


what is he?  Can you say mathematician?  Do you know what they are good at?  hmmmmmmmm?


----------



## westwall (Oct 21, 2015)

jillian said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...







I could care less if he is a climate scientist or not.  Climatologists have shown themselves to be exceptionally poor at basic math as every one of their major papers that has been released in the last 5 years has been summarily demolished within days, if not hours by mere statisticians.  the whole meme that you can't possibly understand what they are talking about is absurd.  A PhD geologist, chemist, physicist, meteorologist can teach ANY climatology class.  A PhD climatologist on the other hand could teach up to the third year in most of those sciences (not geology though, a PhD climatologist would be far behind in some of the second year geology classes, and totally lost starting in the third year) so the meme that climatologists are somehow super smart is ridiculous.


----------



## paulitician (Oct 21, 2015)

westwall said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



They have absolutely no scientific evidence supporting their claim that higher CO2 levels and warmer climates will spell the end of animal and plant life. The historical climate record actually shows the exact opposite of their claims. 

Animal and plant life thrive during periods of high CO2 levels and warm climates. So their whole 'Greenhouse Effect' argument crumbles under closer examination.


----------



## jillian (Oct 21, 2015)

jc456 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



studying math....


----------



## jc456 (Oct 21, 2015)

jillian said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


do you know what climate science is based off of?  can you say MATH????


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 21, 2015)

jillian said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



A left wing moron speaks and show it is totally clueless to what a model is and why Dr Evans is clearly correct.  

He builds models and he evaluates them..  Contrary to your belief he has more science knowledge than 99% of your beloved climate scientists that you hold so dear..


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 21, 2015)

jc456 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Too much is more than there should be. Too much is when the climate starts to change because we've put more up there. Too much is when we're having an impact when we shouldn't be.

Listen, if you're going to keep going with this silly "we exhale CO2 therefore it's not a pollutant" then we're not going to be able to talk. You have to understand what stuff is to be able to talk about a complex issue, instead of either A) just taking the piss and B) being extremely ignorant.

Some things are fact.

Let's try some basic English

pollution: definition of pollution in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

"The presence in or introduction into the environment of a substance or thing that has harmful or poisonous effects:"

More CO2 into the atmosphere is harmful because it increases the greenhouse effect.

Carbon dioxide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Something basic for you

"Carbon dioxide is an important greenhouse gas. Burning of carbon-based fuels since the industrial revolution has rapidly increased its concentration in the atmosphere, leading to global warming. It is also a major cause of ocean acidification since it dissolves in water to form carbonic acid.[7]"

"Carbon dioxide dissolves in the ocean to form carbonic acid (H2CO3), bicarbonate (HCO3−) and carbonate (CO32−). There is about fifty times as much carbon dissolved in the oceans as exists in the atmosphere. The oceans act as an enormous carbon sink, and have taken up about a third of CO2 emitted by human activity.[52]"

"As the concentration of carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere, the increased uptake of carbon dioxide into the oceans is causing a measurable decrease in the pH of the oceans, which is referred to as ocean acidification. "

"This reduction in pH affects biological systems in the oceans, primarily oceanic calcifying organisms. These effects span thefood chain from autotrophs to heterotrophs and include organisms such as coccolithophores, corals, foraminifera, echinoderms, crustaceans and mollusks. Under normal conditions, calcium carbonate is stable in surface waters since the carbonate ion is at supersaturating concentrations. However, as ocean pH falls, so does the concentration of this ion, and when carbonate becomes undersaturated, structures made of calcium carbonate are vulnerable to dissolution.[53] Corals,[54][55][56] coccolithophore algae,[57][58][59][60]coralline algae,[61] foraminifera,[62]shellfish[63] and pteropods[64] experience reduced calcification or enhanced dissolution when exposed to elevated CO2"

So, the biggest impact so far is in the oceans. We're basically polluting so much that the oceans are experiencing ocean acidification, which is destroying ocean eco systems, destroying food chains, and basically having an extremely negative effect on what is there.

Ocean acidification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Current rates of ocean acidification have been compared with the greenhouse event at the Paleocene–Eocene boundary (about 55 million years ago) when surface ocean temperatures rose by 5–6 degrees Celsius. No catastrophe was seen in surface ecosystems, yet bottom-dwelling organisms in the deep ocean experienced a major extinction. "

"The current acidification is on a path to reach levels higher than any seen in the last 65 million years,[39] and the rate of increase is about ten times the rate that preceded the Paleocene–Eocene mass extinction. "

The Earth has become more stable recently. This has allowed the development of human beings. Before the Earth would be trying to regulate itself and would go up and down and cause mass extinctions and temperature fluctuations which would take leading creatures and kill them off to be replaced by other creatures. 
Humanity has increased because of this stability. We're changing this stability. We're destroying it. What do you think will happen to the leading creatures?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 21, 2015)

IanC said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



The plants sure like it. The oceans sure don't.

Ocean acidification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Increasing acidity is thought to have a range of possibly harmful consequences, such as depressing metabolic rates and immune responses in some organisms, and causing coral bleaching. This also causes decreasing oxygen levels as it kills offalgae."


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 21, 2015)

westwall said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



You start your post with an insult.

You're a staff member too. Why would a staff member start a post with an insult. Is this part of the rules of this board? 

Anyway, I'll ignore the rest of your post. It's a waste of time discussing anything with anyone who has the need to start a post with an insult.


----------



## 1stRambo (Oct 21, 2015)

Misty said:


> "A former climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, with six degrees in applied mathematics, Dr Evans has unpacked the architecture of the basic climate model which underpins all climate science.
> 
> *He has found that, while the underlying physics of the model is correct, it had been applied incorrectly.
> 
> ...



Yo, Congrats Misty, you are one of the few here who do their homework!!! 
Now be ready for the deniers in the Socialist Puppet Club! But you did well!

"GTP"
You Can`t Beat Mother Nature!


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 21, 2015)

bear513 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Yeah, in the dinosaur eras there was a lot more. How many humans were there? Oh, er... none. Why do you think that is? Because they were all eaten by dinosaurs or the conditions for human life weren't right?

The dinosaurs died out, maybe they died out because there was a reduction in CO2. 

Anyway, the Earth has regulated itself better now so we had the conditions to survive AND prosper. 

We're destroying this stability. Do you think this is a good idea? The oceans will go first. We're killing the whole of the oceans. Fish will be more of a delicacy in the future, sea fish won't exist, river fish will be more expensive.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 21, 2015)

paulitician said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



I for one am not suggesting it will be the end to animal and plant life at all. So..... why are you saying that we need to prove something we're not talking about?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Oct 21, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



Frigid we got lucky, we flourished right after the last Ice age, the glaciers have been melting ever since, We we're at the right place at the right time.

°Shrugs°

This circle was going to happen no matter if we were here or not. To say man could stabilize the earth is preposterous..

Do you seriously think we could with a straight face?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 21, 2015)

bear513 said:


> Frigid we got lucky, we flourished right after the last Ice age, the glaciers have been melting ever since, We we're at the right place at the right time.
> 
> °Shrugs°
> 
> ...



There are two circles. The first is the natural one. The other is one we're creating and we can't control.

As I said, the planet is getting more stable. We're making it unstable. 

Man hasn't stabilized the Earth, the Earth has done it itself. Should we be changing this?


----------



## westwall (Oct 21, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...







Bullshit.  Here is a far more balanced look at the so called ocean acidification "problem".  The reality is we as a species could burn every carbon bearing rock on the planet and the result would be to drop the oceans pH from an average of 8.1 to 8.0.  Still very alkaline.  Every bit of empirical research has shown that corals and other hard shelled critters grow THICKER shells in the presence of even ridiculously high levels of acidic water.  In one experiment they had acid levels many times what would EVER be experienced in the real world.  Guess what...the shells grew thicker.

Anytime someone is trying to scare the crap out of you so that you will give up your freedoms and your hard earned cahs you should ask yourself who gets the money.  Overwhelmingly it is ultra rich bankers andultra rich politicians who stand to reap the biggest reward.  Furthermore a thinking person would wonder why it is OK to pollute if the situation was so dire the world would be MANDATING a cut in pollution, but no.... there is no mandate to cut.  There is merely a fee attached.  You can still pollute, you just have to pay a fee to some ultra rich dude. 

And you brainless twits can never seem to figure that out.


http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/acid_test.pdf


In CO2-rich Environment, Some Ocean Dwellers Increase Shell Production


----------



## westwall (Oct 21, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Frigid we got lucky, we flourished right after the last Ice age, the glaciers have been melting ever since, We we're at the right place at the right time.
> ...







A "stable Earth"?  Are you stoned?  There is no such thing.  The Earth is acting like the Earth always does.  It just operates on a time scale so vast that a puny mind like yours can't grasp it.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Oct 21, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Frigid we got lucky, we flourished right after the last Ice age, the glaciers have been melting ever since, We we're at the right place at the right time.
> ...



The earth was getting more stable???

Please explain that one to us (I have to hear this one)


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 22, 2015)

westwall said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



Insulting again huh? Maybe try another approach because you're going on ignore.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 22, 2015)

bear513 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...








Up and down and up and down, you see the massive changes in the Silurian ages, between the Carboniferous and Permian ages? Then the Tertiary period the temperatures began to drop to the modern age where ups and downs have been relatively smaller and quite consistent. Even before the Tertiary age things were getting more stable, the Cretaceous era seemed to be a little stable, then temperatures rose and then dropped down further. 

CO2 levels have been dropping for quite a long time, until human advancement too. CO2 levels have been stable for hundreds of thousands of years, after this slow and steady drop.

No doubt a lot of this is a decrease in the number of volcanoes, perhaps plate tectonics slowing down or being so extreme. The Earth is possibly entering a far more stable era. Unless humans change it all, of course.


----------



## paulitician (Oct 22, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



You're pushing a 'Global Warming Apocalypse.' And i'm calling Bullshite on it. Simple as that.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 22, 2015)

paulitician said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > paulitician said:
> ...



You're making stuff up, claiming people are saying something they're no. 

So you're calling bullshite by fighting a ghost. Well done.


----------



## paulitician (Oct 22, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 22, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



CO2 levels dropped largely because the Ice Ages bound up all the Natural carbon exchange between ocean, land and atmosphere. And nothing much was LIVING during that period. CO2 is largely an indicator of LIFE on the planet. Since it's part of the combustion system of every living thing..


----------



## Wyatt earp (Oct 22, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



Well that's common sense, forgot to even think that way, dinos all gone, earth an ice ball, of course the C02 would come down.


----------



## paulitician (Oct 22, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



Of course. Their 'Greenhouse Effect' argument crumbles under closer scrutiny. Does anyone fear Greenhouses? Obviously not, they give life.


----------



## westwall (Oct 22, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...








How sad for you that you can't put me on ignore.  I insult stupidity, it's a problem I have I admit it, but I am old so have little patience with ignorant people who seemingly revel in their ignorance.  Now, how about you address the facts I presented or are they too damaging to your psyche?


----------



## IanC (Oct 22, 2015)

westwall said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...




I too have little patience for stupidity, especially the overconfident variety.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 22, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


*CO2 levels dropped because the oceans were significantly colder, and cold water absorbs more CO2 than warm water. The changes in the Milankovic Cycles started warming the southern ocean, which emitted CO2, which increased the warming. Also much carbon was buried on land by the continental glaciers.*

Glacial-interglacial atmospheric CO2 change —The glacial burial hypothesis - Springer

*Abstract*
Organic carbon buried under the great ice sheets of the Northern Hemisphere is suggested to be the missing link in the atmospheric CO2 change over the glacial-interglacial cycles. At glaciation, the advancement of continental ice sheets buries vegetation and soil carbon accumulated during warmer periods. At deglaciation, this burial carbon is released back into the atmosphere. In a simulation over two glacial-interglacial cycles using a synchronously coupled atmosphere-land-ocean carbon model forced by reconstructed climate change, it is found that there is a 547-Gt terrestrial carbon release from glacial maximum to interglacial, resulting in a 60-Gt (about 30-ppmv) increase in the atmospheric CO2, with the remainder absorbed by the ocean in a scenario in which ocean acts as a passive buffer. This is in contrast to previous estimates of a land uptake at deglaciation. This carbon source originates from glacial burial, continental shelf, and other land areas in response to changes in ice cover, sea level, and climate. The input of light isotope enriched terrestrial carbon causes atmospheric δ13C to drop by about 0.3‰ at deglaciation, followed by a rapid rise towards a high interglacial value in response to oceanic warming and regrowth on land. Together with other ocean based mechanisms such as change in ocean temperature, the glacial burial hypothesis may offer a full explanation of the observed 80–100-ppmv atmospheric CO2 change.

*There was plenty of life south of the ice line. Expecially in North America. Huge lakes in Oregon, California, and Nevada. Actually more differant species then than live here today. Quite a lot went extinct during the Younger Dryas.*


----------



## westwall (Oct 22, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...










Yet there was significantly less life than when ice didn't cover such a huge portion of the land surface.  There were orders of magnitude more life prior to the ice ages.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Oct 22, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



Informative old rocks, but you should edit it, you could get in trouble by posting the entire article


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 22, 2015)

bear513 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Abstracts are OK.. They are often provided for free when the papers are behind a paywall. It's meant to be a summary of the protected work..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 22, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



Lie after lie after lie... 

You think you would get tired of the bull shit lies.. The earth has been stable for some 450 million years. Your narrow determination that our time on earth is the most ideal and is the way it should be is totally ludicrous. Your ego is so grand that you think you can command the earths systems.


frigidweirdo said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



You really are clueless.. 

Your own graph disproves your claims and your AGW hyperbole.  The earth has remained stable, within its known temperature range of +/- 6 deg C for over 450 billion years. That's right the range is 12 deg C. And you morons are worried about 0.67 deg C change in 150 years. 

Secondly the amount of CO2 has ranged from around 7,900ppm to near zero. Plant life ceases to operate when CO2 levels reach around 250ppm.  The average CO2 level for the earth is around 1795ppm. At those rates of CO2 in our atmosphere the planets temperature has NEVER GONE OUT OF CONTROL because CO2 has little to no effect due to WATER VAPOR which acts as a negative forcing.

I gave you empirical evidence which support this and you ignored it.  Funny how you alarmists ignore FACTS which show your religion fantasy.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 22, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



And therefore the point that was being made is that the Earth is now more stable. Would you agree with this? 

Would you also agree that human interference threatens this stability?


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 22, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



Actually no. I couldn't agree to that. And I'm not dissing you for believing that. But on a timescale that matters to climate -- this planet has been oscillating in and out of MAJOR glacial periods in just it's RECENT history. And the warm times are CONSIDERABLY shorter than the cold times. FOUR TIMES in recent past history. So the odds are -- it's by every scientific and engineering definition in an unstable state. BUT --- maybe this oscillation is what's left of the more violent and magnified extremes that existed in it's early development. So in a sense -- it's MATURED -- but I wouldn't bet there isn't gonna be a fairly regular 5th or 6th Ice Age in the future.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 22, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Actually no. I couldn't agree to that. And I'm not dissing you for believing that. But on a timescale that matters to climate -- this planet has been oscillating in and out of MAJOR glacial periods in just it's RECENT history. And the warm times are CONSIDERABLY shorter than the cold times. FOUR TIMES in recent past history. So the odds are -- it's by every scientific and engineering definition in an unstable state. BUT --- maybe this oscillation is what's left of the more violent and magnified extremes that existed in it's early development. So in a sense -- it's MATURED -- but I wouldn't bet there isn't gonna be a fairly regular 5th or 6th Ice Age in the future.



The chart that I presented shows that yes, the Earth goes up and down. That is stability. It's just that the ups and downs are far less catastrophic than they have been in the past. Before the rise and fall in temperatures was far, far wider than they are now. 

I'm not saying that temperatures are stable within a few degrees every year, year on year for hundreds of thousands of years. I'm saying they're much more stable than they were before, stable to the point where humans have been able to develop as we have done. 

So, you call it "matured", whatever, same thing. Sure, there might be an ice age in the future, well, doesn't look likely if we keep on the path we're going. Would an ice age be such a bad thing, really?


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 22, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Actually no. I couldn't agree to that. And I'm not dissing you for believing that. But on a timescale that matters to climate -- this planet has been oscillating in and out of MAJOR glacial periods in just it's RECENT history. And the warm times are CONSIDERABLY shorter than the cold times. FOUR TIMES in recent past history. So the odds are -- it's by every scientific and engineering definition in an unstable state. BUT --- maybe this oscillation is what's left of the more violent and magnified extremes that existed in it's early development. So in a sense -- it's MATURED -- but I wouldn't bet there isn't gonna be a fairly regular 5th or 6th Ice Age in the future.
> ...



Stability means something else in science/engineering. If a system is REPEATING a pattern over and over again -- it is oscillating and declared instable. So it COULD be semantics. The CAUSE of those oscillations is fairly well agreed upon and WILL likely repeat. Could be that a little influence from man might be prolonging our "nice" climate into the next millenium.. Have you considered that possibility?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 22, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



The last four hundred and fifty thousand years have been pertty regular in their oscillations. 



Our interglacial is about over if it is not already as each time we flip into glacial phase we have a peak spike. The spatial resolution of 500 year plots cant show the real levels of CO2 at the time of spike but the temperatures spikes are well documented.   The spike on the end of this graph is really a point out of context.

Our current CO2 spike is most likely normal cyclical response and natural variation. from the empirical evidence this has all happened before many times.


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 22, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



FunTime's almost over if you read that chart literally. The spike at the end is WAAAY out of context because ice cores on that scale will NEVER have enough resolution to show 60 or 100 years blips in temperature. I GUARANTEE other interglacial  optimums had temperatures similar to ours at one time or the other.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 22, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Were at 11,600 years for the current interglacial.  When you consider the last four have averaged just 9,500 years were living on borrowed heat... The longest being 12,500 years and the shortest being just 7,500 years.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 22, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Yes, I have considered this. And I've also considered that we could be putting in place something which destroys everything. 

Now, the point here is, when you go into the unknown, do you jump in with swim suit, googles and swimming hat, or do you stick you little toe in and check to see if there's water in the pool, or if it's empty, or if it's full of poison etc?

I'd say caution is the only way you can proceed. However man made climate change deniers want us to just jump in (knowing they'll probably be dead by the time the shit hits the fan.)


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 22, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



Please show us empirical evidence to support your claims. Your current crop of models have failed to show any predictive capability and have failed so they are not worth the time to even look at and they are NOT EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.  They are fantasy and your basing your life choices on a fantasy?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 22, 2015)

flacaltenn said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



There are two ends. Which end are you talking about?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Oct 22, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



Jump into what?

It seems to me the AGW cult ( you don't seem like one of them) is the one that wants to jump in/ not think what they were doing.

We seen that with the new EPA power plant regulation, where the Supremes blocked it because way to expensive

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/06/3...s-obamas-limits-on-power-plants.html?referer=

Or a judge blocking the EPA regulation on water ways



Federal judge blocks Obama’s water rule


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 22, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



The bottom of the graph shows "years before present" the number "0". Directly above it is the current "spike" which is a plot of less than 50 years.  IF we averaged that spike into a 500 year plot the CO2 spike would not exist nor would the temperature spike you all are so worried about.

The point is this; when placed in proper perspective there is no emergency nor any reason to run around like chicken little screaming the sky is falling.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 22, 2015)

bear513 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...




Jumping into the UNKNOWN. Some might call it the future. 

The funny thing is, conservatives, called conservatives because they're usually very cautious about change, are being extremely relaxed about change.

Could it be that they're not really worried about change at all, and it's all about money?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Oct 22, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



Nope

Balance...


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 22, 2015)

bear513 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



You're going to have to explain, I'm not a mind reader.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 27, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


So S0n, let's start here:
*Too much is more than there should be. Too much is when the climate starts to change because we've put more up there. Too much is when we're having an impact when we shouldn't be.*
How much is there supposed to be?  You still haven't provided one piece of data that says we have too much CO2.  do you have those figures?

Then, prove CO2 is a greenhouse gas capable of any climate change.  Can you do that?  nope!!!

And lastly, go in a room full of CO2 and you'll die.  Do you know why?  No oxygen you fool.  CO2 is not a pollutant and I'd really appreciate at it that you stop with calling it such.  Carbon monoxide is a pollutant and is what comes from a car.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 27, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


again making a speech without evidence in play.  Come now fridge, post us up some numbers.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 27, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Frigid we got lucky, we flourished right after the last Ice age, the glaciers have been melting ever since, We we're at the right place at the right time.
> ...



Global modeling.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Oct 27, 2015)

jc456 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Ya know what I find amusing, people always point to Venus as an example of a green house and imply C02

Yet ignore Mars, which is cold and its atmosphere is made up of 95% C02


----------



## jc456 (Oct 27, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


i just have to laugh at this old sock update on glacial-interglacial cycles.  Exactly why is there more CO2 in the atmosphere today, ice melted.  Not humans existed.  holy crap batman, I don't understand idiot.  I just don't.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 27, 2015)

so, as interesting as this all is, the facts are right now, all the leaves on the trees in the Northern central states are turning color and falling off.  I hate raking. All the plant life in the soil is dying off or going dormant.  CO2 in the air is the same right now as it is when the trees were full and green.  Why'd they suddenly loose their leaves?  Cold and do you know why it is cold, less sun.  Funny when the earth axis changes and the daylight declines, it gets cold.  It's been doing that since I've been alive 60 years.  It will eventually snow and cover all of the remaining plant life.  So zero CO2 discharge by plants.

The conditions stay in this state almost half a year in this region.  Now when the axis tilts back and the daylight becomes longer, longer periods of sun, it will get warmer and eventually all the snow and ice will melt.  But not until then.  And all the CO2 you want to shit into the atmosphere ain't gonna change any of what I just posted.

Proving a modelling error doesn't seem that difficult given the fact of how the axis of the earth actually tilts and seasons change.  Less sunlight, colder weather, it's why the Chicago climate is a cool climate.  See when the axis tilts this way the same weather patterns occur.  And there ain't one poster on this forum can change how the earth tilt occurs.  Can you? Are you now going to say modeling can change the axis or humans that is?


----------



## frigidweirdo (Oct 27, 2015)

jc456 said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




How much is there supposed to be? Well, here's the equation. 

What is in the air naturally + what we stuff in the air = X

X - what we stuff in the air = is how much there is supposed to be.

Simple, right?

Of course you're not going to see that we have too much, because you don't care how much there is. You probably believe that 100% is okay, right? 

However, to prove there's too much we only need look at the oceans to see that the PH levels of the oceans are dropping because of all the CO2 there is in the air. This is killing the oceans. Wouldn't you say the destruction of 2/3s of the world's eco-systems because of too much CO2 in the air means there's TOO MUCH CO2 in the air?

Can I prove that CO2 is a greenhouse gas which could change the atmosphere of the Earth's surface. Sure I could. Could I prove it TO YOU? Ah, well, there's a different issue altogether. I have the feeling that no, I could not prove it to you. I have the feeling that the insults will come out long because you'd accept anything that's inconvenient for your own point of view. 

As for whether CO2 is a pollutant, well, you might not like me saying it is a pollutant, but we've been over this, and you've shown on many occasions that you're not going to debate properly. That you're not going to look at arguments properly. 

Some people don't want to know the truth. They just want their view point to be correct no matter what. So what's the point? I'm not going to change your point of view because you don't want it to change.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 27, 2015)

frigidweirdo said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



Where did you get that load of crap? 

CO2 IS NOT A POLLUTANT...  My God man think about it. It is the root of all life on earth and you want to eradicate it? 

You are a total moron!  You dont know what earths normal cyclical state levels historically have been and you want to make an arbitrary call and force the earth to comply...

The stupidity, IT BURNS!


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 27, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Silly Billy, that is about the funniest post I have read in a while. Plant life cannot operate at 250 ppm? At the coldest points of the glacials, the CO2 level was 180 ppm. And there were mammoths and mastodons. So what the hell were they eating if not plants? They were plant eaters, after all.

The earth has remained stable for over 450 million years? There were five great extinctions during this period. And many smaller ones. 

Billy Bob, you are the most brain dead poster on this board.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 27, 2015)

bear513 said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...


And the atmospheric pressure on Mars is what?


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 27, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


Quite obviously, you, as an idiot, do not understand basics. 

During the last glacial, there were a lot of humans alive. In fact, this is our second interglacial, as Homo Sap has been around for at least 160,000 years.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 27, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > frigidweirdo said:
> ...



You really are totally ignorant of basic chemistry and the requirements of the atmosphere for photosynthesis to take place.

Tell me moron, what happens to the chemical exchange in plants when CO2 drops below 280ppm.

Edit:
Because you are clueless;

The plants ability to reproduce slows or stops. No new flowers, no pollination, the plants ability to use water and nutrients from the soil decreases. This means plant species die, food becomes harder to grow and PEOPLE DIE!


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Oct 28, 2015)

mamooth said:


> There have already been two threads in the Environment folder where this got laughed at. But I get it, when conservatives get their marching orders, they all rush to obey.
> 
> Evans is a clown who botched the math and physics. However, you won't be able to convince a denier of that, being their faith in their conspiracy theory is unshakable. According to them, the last 3 centuries of math and physics are all wrong, overturned by an electrical engineer political fanatic. Yeah, that's probably it.
> 
> If Evans isn't a clown, he merely needs to use his theory to make climate predictions, and show those predictions come true. Mainstream climate science has been getting everything right for decades, which is why it has such credibility. Of course, like every other denier, Evans won't have the guts to put his credibility on the line by making predictions, or to submit his work to peer review.



What have they gotten right ?????

You have to be kidding me.

ROTFLMAO


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 28, 2015)

mamooth said:


> There have already been two threads in the Environment folder where this got laughed at. But I get it, when conservatives get their marching orders, they all rush to obey.
> 
> Evans is a clown who botched the math and physics. However, you won't be able to convince a denier of that, being their faith in their conspiracy theory is unshakable. According to them, the last 3 centuries of math and physics are all wrong, overturned by an electrical engineer political fanatic. Yeah, that's probably it.
> 
> If Evans isn't a clown, he merely needs to use his theory to make climate predictions, and show those predictions come true. Mainstream climate science has been getting everything right for decades, which is why it has such credibility. Of course, like every other denier, Evans won't have the guts to put his credibility on the line by making predictions, or to submit his work to peer review.



I guess you have shown yourself an ignorant, know nothing ass clown..

I'm going to ask that you provide the math, methods, and data for the models which have shown NO PREDICTIVE POWER. Your models are broken and fail. They are not even close to reality.  All Dr. Evans did was tell you why they fail so miserably. And his work is online for all to evaluate and comment on.

So it's your turn... Dr Evans has been very transparent in his work, you alarmists and your religious cult leaders are all wet..  Why dont you get your side to produce their data, math and methods for multidisciplinary review.  OR ARE YOU SCARED WE MIGHT FIND MORE BULL SHIT and LIES?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 28, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


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


In the ice, there'd be CO2 frozen in it. Ice coring verifies that.  so again, when the ice melts,  all that CO2 goes into the atmosphere.  I would expect a spike or an increase in atmospheric levels when that occurred, not the presence of human life.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 28, 2015)

jc456 said:


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



Now you've gone and done it... I can see the permafrost rant coming..   (dont tell him that its just a few meter's thick and that the amount of gas trapped in it is just 15% of original estimates..)


----------



## mamooth (Oct 28, 2015)

You two realize that made no sense, right? The amount of CO2 locked in bubbles in ice cores is completely insignificant when compared to the CO2 in the atmosphere. That CO2 is also accompanied by all the other gases of the atmosphere, so releasing it won't change ratios at all. If there was any effect, it would be to decrease CO2 levels, since those trapped bubbles have lower CO2 levels.

That's the problem with most deniers. They have no idea of the scale of physical phenomena, no common sense in thinking about the physical world. They go entirely by their feelings, which are always wrong.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 28, 2015)

mamooth said:


> You two realize that made no sense, right? The amount of CO2 locked in bubbles in ice cores is completely insignificant when compared to the CO2 in the atmosphere. That CO2 is also accompanied by all the other gases of the atmosphere, so releasing it won't change ratios at all. If there was any effect, it would be to decrease CO2 levels, since those trapped bubbles have lower CO2 levels.
> 
> That's the problem with most deniers. They have no idea of the scale of physical phenomena, no common sense in thinking about the physical world. They go entirely by their feelings, which are always wrong.


funny,  you have a hemisphere full of ice with trapped gas and when the ice melts, it has but one place to go, up.   Hell 20 PPM of CO2 has magical powers according to you all and can make category 5 hurricanes, droughts and floods.  20 PPM.


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 28, 2015)

mamooth said:


> You two realize that made no sense, right? The amount of CO2 locked in bubbles in ice cores is completely insignificant when compared to the CO2 in the atmosphere. That CO2 is also accompanied by all the other gases of the atmosphere, so releasing it won't change ratios at all. If there was any effect, it would be to decrease CO2 levels, since those trapped bubbles have lower CO2 levels.
> 
> That's the problem with most deniers. They have no idea of the scale of physical phenomena, no common sense in thinking about the physical world. They go entirely by their feelings, which are always wrong.



It's not the amount of CO2 trapped in the ice that sequesters the Carbon  during a glacial.. It's the fact that the ice PREVENTS the normal sinking and sourcing of CO2/methane underneath it -- for that period. Not a "normal" condition for the planet as we know it..


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 28, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


What a dumb ass you are, Silly Billy. The normal high for the interglacials has been 280 ppm to 300 ppm. The normal low, from 180 ppm to 200 ppm.




Vostok Ice Core record of variations in air temperature (relative to the current average temperature of �55.5°C at Vostok) and CO2concentrations from gas bubbles in the ice. (Data from Petit et al., 1999.)

Again, in all the low points of the ice ages, there were very large plant eating animals that survived just fine. Therefore, there had to be an abundance of plants. 

Billy, pulling nonsense like that out of your ass is why you are even more of a laughing stock than Frankie. And that is a hard score to beat.


----------



## flacaltenn (Oct 29, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Those are low resolution findings. Incapable of actually measuring accurate peaks and valleys. There are plenty of shorter more highly resolved studies showing MASSIVE swings in CO2 highs and low during the last Ice cycle. And I've POSTED a couple of those before. You need to remember the limitations of the data sets you are citings whenever you attempt to make sweeping statements of what is known..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 29, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Your having a hard time understanding Spatial Resolution aren't ya..

Sucks to be you!  Calling names and then being shown that your a fool who doesn't know squat..  Tell me moron, your graph has a SR of 500 years, Is it capable of showing the wider swings we have seen the last 100 years?


----------

