# Looks Like The Cat's Out Of The Bag....



## PoliticalChic (Jul 21, 2018)

Remember this, from the first Republican President?

*You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.*


Looks like the Global Warming Scam has run its course.


*"New Gallup Poll: Americans do not even mention global warming as a problem – 36 ‘problems’ cited, but not climate*

According to the latest Gallup poll, NOBODY thinks global warming is our most important problem, contrary to what NRCM, Audubon and CLF sock puppets tell us."
New Gallup Poll: Americans do not even mention global warming as a problem – 36 ‘problems’ cited, but not climate



Oh, noooozzzzz!!!!

Now we're gonna have to find a whole new bunch of human piñatas!!!


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 21, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> Remember this, from the first Republican President?
> 
> *You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.*
> 
> ...


As more and more people are aware of what the earth has done over the ages they learn what they are seeing is not an emergency of any kind...  Its rather refreshing to see people become informed on a scam that stole trillions of dollars from us.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 21, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Remember this, from the first Republican President?
> ...





Think we can get Gore to give back the loot????


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 21, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


Not a chance....  he still has the EU duped...


----------



## Confounding (Jul 21, 2018)

I guess Europe, Asia and the scientists who know more about it than anybody need to catch up with retards from the United States.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 21, 2018)

Looks like Conservative misinformation is working


----------



## Montrovant (Jul 21, 2018)

It's not relevant to the point of the OP, but it's questionable that Lincoln actually said that.

You Cannot Fool All the People All the Time – Quote Investigator


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 21, 2018)

Been saying it for 5 years.
...the evidence is daunting.

Even most young people laugh when "global warming" comes up for discussion. It was a fad for the hopelessly duped, many who now know the score and dont want to look like a jackass!.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 21, 2018)

Confounding said:


> I guess Europe, Asia and the scientists who know more about it than anybody need to catch up with dumb ass Americans.


Nope..

The EU is censoring anything that doesn't match their socialist takeover agenda....  Can't have reasoning minds get the facts on the scam..


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 21, 2018)

Lol.....watch the progressive responses.Yuk...yuk.....even prominent people in the media are saying these folks are just out of touch.

I love this forum


----------



## Confounding (Jul 21, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> > I guess Europe, Asia and the scientists who know more about it than anybody need to catch up with dumb ass Americans.
> ...



The world would laugh at us if the abject stupidity in this country wasn't so dangerous. I've given up on trying to convince people like you that scientists the world over are not in on a conspiracy to scam us into giving them grant money. It's enough to know historians will look back and talk about how people like you were stupid as fuck.


----------



## Confounding (Jul 21, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> Looks like Conservative misinformation is working



It's seriously embarrassing. A bunch of fuck mouthed rednecks from the United States have unraveled the global conspiracy being pushed by some of the most educated people on Earth. Right...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 21, 2018)

Confounding said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Confounding said:
> ...


As I have a Masters in Atmospheric Physics I find your comment insulting...

As a scientist, you are the ones who are climbing a tree that is on fire..  Your facts are derived from models that have NO PREDICTIVE POWER... Your making assumptions from a position of ignorance.. Fooled by your toys...  Until you come to grips with empirical evidence you will always be a dupe for whatever folly your told is true.  I deal in facts you can prove, not fantasy you wish were happening...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 21, 2018)

Confounding said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Looks like Conservative misinformation is working
> ...


LOL

This verbiage outs you as a paid for UN Agenda Shill....  Run along laddie, your mamma has a nice hot cup of coco for ya!


----------



## Penelope (Jul 21, 2018)

Where do you find all these crazies, Marc Morano,

hanging out on conservative threads.


----------



## Confounding (Jul 21, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



You'd think somebody that went to college for 6 years would be a little better at typing English. The scientists are not lying to us. People like you are a detriment to our species.


----------



## Confounding (Jul 21, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> This verbiage outs you as a paid for UN Agenda Shill



This sentence outs you as a fucking idiot.


----------



## Natural Citizen (Jul 21, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> As I have a Masters in Atmospheric Physics I find your comment insulting...



Do you really?


----------



## HaShev (Jul 21, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> Looks like Conservative misinformation is working


Does global warming donation money go to "campaigns" to legislate climate issues?  Imagine that coincidence.
Can you list who receives the donation money, listing percentages to where and which companies, campaigns, national committees are the benefactor?  Because surely the Polar bears who have no pockets have not received a dime.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 21, 2018)

skookerasbil said:


> Been saying it for 5 years.
> ...the evidence is daunting.
> 
> Even most young people laugh when "global warming" comes up for discussion. It was a fad for the hopelessly duped, many who now know the score and dont want to look like a jackass!.




"...the hopelessly duped..."


Looks like a couple of 'em dropped into the thread.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 21, 2018)

Confounding said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Confounding said:
> ...




"The world would laugh at us....blah blah blah..."


Hey, I'm laughin' at you right now.


----------



## Confounding (Jul 21, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



That's nice honey.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 21, 2018)

Confounding said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Looks like Conservative misinformation is working
> ...




The vulgarity is always a give-away at your embarrassment.



"...some of the most educated people on Earth..."

*“Some ideas are so stupid, only an intellectual could believe them.” 
George Orwell*


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 21, 2018)

Confounding said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Confounding said:
> ...


Tell me,  How are your models doing at mimicking the system they were designed to model?


----------



## Confounding (Jul 21, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



That's nice honey.


----------



## Confounding (Jul 21, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Welp, that seals it. You better send this info to the scientific institutions all over the world that disagree with your position. Humanity must know the truth. Go, now.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 21, 2018)

Confounding said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Looks like Conservative misinformation is working
> ...


Every other nation on earth recognizes the dangers of global warming

Conservatives in this country have convinced people it is fake news


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 21, 2018)

And now, a trip down Memory Lane, to see more idiots like you:
The idiots are the ones who swallowed this:

On* January 25, 2006........*

... while at the Sundance film festival, "politicians and corporations have been ignoring the issue for decades, to the point that unless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases are taken within the next 10 years
*the world will reach a point of no return,* Gore said." 2006: Al Gore Does Sundance


BTW...in *1988, Ted Danson crowed that we had only ten years to save the oceans.*

Then, even earlier....there was Chicken Little.....

Makes you look kinda stupid, huh?




Here, the short version of 'Global Warming,' for all ignorant sheep who accept the dogma:

“Mankind faces a crossroads.
One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness.
The other, to total extinction.
Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly.”
Woody Allen


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 21, 2018)

Confounding said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Confounding said:
> ...


You have no clue what your looking at.  Do you?  And then you go off on an uniformed tangent.  Have you always been so uniformed and so pathetic on your arguments?

I gave you your almighty models and overlaid the actual EMPIRICAL TEMPERATURE...  

Your models fail empirical review.... Time to get a new hypothesis.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 21, 2018)

Here... let me use crayons...  this might help you...




In yellow is REALITY....

Circled in red is FANTASY!


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 21, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Here... let me use crayons...  this might help you...
> 
> View attachment 206325
> In yellow is REALITY....
> ...





Cut 'em some slack, Billy-B......

...they live in abject fear of ever doubting, confronting....even questioning.....the burblings of the Left.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 21, 2018)

Confounding said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Confounding said:
> ...





"Humanity must know the truth."

They do.....that's why you're so upset.....


*"New Gallup Poll: Americans do not even mention global warming as a problem – 36 ‘problems’ cited, but not climate*

According to the latest Gallup poll, NOBODY thinks global warming is our most important problem, contrary to what NRCM, Audubon and CLF sock puppets tell us."
New Gallup Poll: Americans do not even mention global warming as a problem – 36 ‘problems’ cited, but not climate


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 21, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Here... let me use crayons...  this might help you...
> ...


The 'slack' I would give them (self edit...) I digress... They are the ones claiming they have science on their side but they never seem to get Empirical Evidence to prove it.


----------



## Confounding (Jul 21, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



You should go make a fortune showing scientists that they are wrong about global warming.


----------



## Confounding (Jul 21, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



That's nice honey.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 21, 2018)

Confounding said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Confounding said:
> ...


I already do....  That's whats so stinking funny about you guys...  You ASSUME and most of the time your wrong!


----------



## Confounding (Jul 21, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> I already do....  That's whats so stinking funny about you guys...  You ASSUME and most of the time your wrong!



If you disproved global warming you'd be famous. Scientists love realizing they're wrong because it improves our understanding of the world around us. Scientific institutions all over the planet disagree with you. Something tells me somebody with an 8th grade understanding of how to use the English language is not going around disproving global warming.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 21, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Do you have even one shred of Empirically Observed Evidence to prove your assumption?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 21, 2018)

Confounding said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > I already do....  That's whats so stinking funny about you guys...  You ASSUME and most of the time your wrong!
> ...


 Copernicus was held in jail for many years...  Not until after his death did he gain fame...  It took years for the political elite and the church to be shown frauds and liars.. Political agenda is a powerful foe.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 21, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...





They don' need no stinkin' evidence!!!

They have the amniotic warmth of the mob's embrace!



And, of course, 'science' doesn't mean the same thing to government school grads as it does to us.

"In academia, *truth has fallen in priority to ideology,* also known as the ‘greater truth’ of pre-formed conclusions. A case in point is *climate change*. Normal science discovers facts, and then constructs a theory from those facts. ‘Post-modern science’ starts with a theory that is politically sensitive, and then makes up facts to influence opinion in its favor."
 Melanie Phillips, “The World Turned Upside Down.”


----------



## Confounding (Jul 21, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



The scientific community accepted what Copernicus said because he proved he was right. Like you mentioned, it was religious nut jobs that tried to suppress his work. Scientists love when big ideas are proven to be wrong. Religious nut jobs that believe in fairy tales are the ones that don't believe in science. You are no Copernicus dude, sorry.


----------



## Confounding (Jul 21, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Thank you for demonstrating that you don't understand the difference between a theory and a hypothesis. That home school religious brain washing you got sure did you a lot of good.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 21, 2018)

Confounding said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Confounding said:
> ...


Not worried about that... I do just fine teaching people about the lies the AGW crowd has spewed for 40 years..  Its a great feeling to see the lights go on in people who have been duped and then see the lies exposed... There were many more ahead of me and there are many more after.... And science is on my side with facts, something you all have abandoned.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 21, 2018)

Confounding said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...





OK, OK....stop begging: I'll explain science to you:


*Steps of the Scientific Method*

Make an Observation. Scientists are naturally curious about the world. ...
Form a Question. After making an interesting observation, a scientific mind itches to find out more about it. ...
Form a Hypothesis. ...
Conduct an Experiment. ...
Analyse the Data and Draw a Conclusion.
*Scientific Method Steps – The Scientific Method – School of Dragons*


----------



## Confounding (Jul 21, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



You barely grasp how to use the English language. Where exactly do you teach people about AGW lies? Color me skeptical.


----------



## Confounding (Jul 21, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



That's nice honey, but you already demonstrated that you don't understand the difference between a theory and a hypothesis. Your parents did you a real disservice.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 21, 2018)

Confounding said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Confounding said:
> ...


Funny;

Tell me, Do you believe your failed models?  Why?


----------



## Confounding (Jul 21, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Where do you teach people about AGW lies? Certainly not a legitimate scientific institution. Are you talking about your beer club or something?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 21, 2018)

Confounding said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Confounding said:
> ...


LOL

I am not as stupid as you are... Please get back to topic.  Tell me, do you believe your failed modeling?  Why do you believe it?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 21, 2018)

Confounding said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Confounding said:
> ...





Sooo....you still can't grasp what science is?


See  if this helps:

In the words of Melanie Phillips, (The World Turned Upside Down),  “we have a doctrine of mandated intellectual mendacity.”


a.      Mike Hulme is Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA), [Mike Hulme] and was good enough to reveal the truth in the Guardian, 2007:

 “…this particular mode of scientific activity… has been labeled *"post-normal" science. Climate change seems to fall in this category.* Disputes in post-normal science focus as often on the process of science - who gets funded, who evaluates quality, who has the ear of policy - as on the facts of science….

*Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking,… scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence.* 

If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity…. *Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.”* The appliance of science.




¬ *So global warming theory did not seek to establish the truth through evidence. Instead, truth had to be traded for influence: *scientists presented beliefs as a basis for policy. The shame: *science has been junked in the interest of promoting ideological conviction.*



Get it now, you dunce?????


----------



## Confounding (Jul 21, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



I don't think you teach anybody about climate science. You should go do some research and listen to what actual scientists have to say about the topic.


----------



## Confounding (Jul 21, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



The statement you made earlier clearly demonstrated that you conflate theories and hypotheses. You do that because you're uneducated. You should leave these things to people that are actually educated and qualified, honey.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 21, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> Looks like Conservative misinformation is working



Alas, it is you who is misinformed.  Here, let me prove it to you.  You can't provide a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability....not the first piece of actual evidence and yet you believe.  It is quite clear who is misinformed...believing in something with no actual evidence to support the claims...sounds misinformed to me.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 21, 2018)

Confounding said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Confounding said:
> ...


And again you ASSUME....

Yet you never address the facts I presented you?  Now why would that be?  So interested in my personal endevours and not so interested in the facts you refuse to address.

Are you simply a left wing hack who is set on finding me and trying to use force an fear to shut me up?  Is that your game?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 21, 2018)

Confounding said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Confounding said:
> ...



Ok...then prove it.  Provide a single piece of observed measured evidence that supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability...just one.  Surely if "all" the scientists are convinced, there must be some pretty hard core evidence...I mean, you can't even get all scientists to agree on something as basic as gravity.  So lets see a bit of this actual evidence that has all the scientists convinced.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 21, 2018)

Confounding said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Confounding said:
> ...





I just proved that Global Warming is politics, not science.....

....you keep trying to dodge the fact.


I love putting that burr under your saddle, donkey.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 21, 2018)

Confounding said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Looks like Conservative misinformation is working
> ...



Waiting for that single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...and it will never be forthcoming because no such evidence exists...and since no such evidence exists, what else other than a dump truck full of money and political power might bring naturally skeptical people into agreement on anything?


----------



## Confounding (Jul 21, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Some dumb redneck that thinks he understands climate science better than actual climate scientists is not worth that kind of effort. You should *endeavor* to have more than a rudimentary understanding of English before you start lying about your academic credentials.


----------



## Confounding (Jul 21, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



That's nice honey.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 21, 2018)

Confounding said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Confounding said:
> ...



Of course they are as evidenced by the fact that you can't provide a single piece of observed measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...not a single shred.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 21, 2018)

Confounding said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Confounding said:
> ...



You should endeavor to learn to research material for yourself rather than depend on scam artists to tell you what you should think.  Had you done any actual research, you would realize that there is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence out there that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.


----------



## Confounding (Jul 21, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



You should break it down for those scientists all over the world that just don't get it like you do.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 21, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



You think warming is more dangerous than cooling?  What dangers are you talking about?  This should be interesting since most of the past 10,000 years have been warmer than the present.


----------



## Confounding (Jul 21, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



I wonder if it's possible to measure the amount of stupidity it takes to believe scientists all over the world are in on a global warming conspiracy.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 21, 2018)

Confounding said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Confounding said:
> ...



And let the dodging begin.  Its always the same with you dupes...you talk as if you had a clue...like you have seen the evidence and it easily convinced you...but when someone asks for even one piece of observed, measured evidence, it is like someone opened a logical fallacy flood gate...rather than slap me down with that single shred of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, you go into dodge mode...and why?  Because that single piece of evidence I asked for does not exist.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 21, 2018)

Confounding said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Confounding said:
> ...



If there is any actual observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability, lets see it....if there is no such evidence, then exactly what convinced all those scientists if not money?


----------



## Montrovant (Jul 21, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



I'm curious where all the data in this chart comes from.  I can't interpret the various labels; are they each a different climate model?  And the balloon and satellite data sets, where are those from?  

I'm not questioning the data's validity, I don't know enough about it to know whether that would be a reasonable response.


----------



## Confounding (Jul 21, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



There is endless nonsense on the internet for unscientific dimwits like you to cling to while you say with a straight face that the scientists are wrong. I've danced this dance before and it's a waste of time. You've already made up your mind, so I'll just laugh at you instead.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 21, 2018)

Confounding said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Confounding said:
> ...


Thank You for confirming you are a political hack.  You have no intention to discuss the topic and you insist on speaking from a position of ignorance...

Nice attempt at Saul Alyinsky's Rules for Radicals by the way. Good effort.. 

You hit three or four of your rules in an attempt to discredit and bait me.... Now kindly FUCK OFF.  You are not worth my time.


----------



## Confounding (Jul 21, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



The guys at your beer club are waiting. Go tell them about how ignorant climate scientists are.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 21, 2018)

Montrovant said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Confounding said:
> ...


The Charts origination is Dr Roy Spencer and Dr John Christy, University of Alabama (At Huntsville) aka; UAH.  It is a compilation of CMP models (Global Climate Models) and the actual balloon data sets (empirically observed data) of earths physical atmosphere.

The chart shows the empirical failure of all GCM's to date.  All those models that tell alarmists were going to burn up...


----------



## SSDD (Jul 21, 2018)

Confounding said:


> There is endless nonsense on the internet for unscientific dimwits like you to cling to while you say with a straight face that the scientists are wrong. I've danced this dance before and it's a waste of time. You've already made up your mind, so I'll just laugh at you instead.



Shuck and jive....dodge and weave....tuck tail and run...it is always the same with you guys.  Here I am, asking not for absolute proof that we are causing cliamte change...not even an overwhelming body of evidence that we are causing climate change...I am asking for a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability and you can't produce it...all of climate science can't produce it.

That being the case, what exactly do you think has all these scientists convinced.

I am asking for evidence...how is providing it a waste of your time.  I certainly have no problem providing data that strongly suggests that most of the past 10,000 years has been warmer than the present.  Interesting, don't you think, that us skeptics can provide actual data to support our position while all you have is failing models and wild assed guesses?

And laughing, when you are being made a laughing stock presents some interesting psychology...you can't provide a single shred of actual evidence to support your position and when called on it, you laugh. ......interesting.


----------



## Confounding (Jul 21, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> > There is endless nonsense on the internet for unscientific dimwits like you to cling to while you say with a straight face that the scientists are wrong. I've danced this dance before and it's a waste of time. You've already made up your mind, so I'll just laugh at you instead.
> ...



No, no I get it now. There's no evidence; you're right. It's all a big conspiracy. Scientists all over the world are lying to the public so they can help spread globalism and socialism. How did I not see it before? Thank you Dingus. My life is forever changed.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 21, 2018)

Confounding said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Confounding said:
> ...



And still not a single piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

Here, let me show you what it looks like to provide evidence that supports your position....

Here is a gold standard temperature reconstruction derived from the GISP2 ice cores taken from above the Arctic Circle.  Even climate science acknowledges that ice cores are the gold standard for temperature reconstruction.  Note the present temperature relative to the past 10,000 years.







Here is another gold standard temperature reconstruction derived from the Vostok ice cores taken from Antarctica.






Again, note the present temperature relative to the past 10,000 years.  Close examination of the two graphs shows very similar temperature spikes over the past 10K years.  Now, if you can think of a rational, scientifically valid reason why gold standard ice cores taken from opposite poles indicate that most of the past 10,000 years  was warmer than the present but the globe in between was not, I would like to hear it. 

Then there is this...dozens of studies showing the past was warmer than the present. 


Project: Mapping the Medieval Warm Period | Die kalte Sonne







So I have supported my position with gold standard temperature reconstructions and dozens of peer reviewed, published papers which show that the past was warmer than the present...and I have just barely scratched the surface.  What do you have?  answer:  nothing at all but impotent bluster.


----------



## Confounding (Jul 21, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Thank you for enlightening me, Dingus. We need to let the scientists know. Where should we start?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 21, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


It is nothing but hot air... It has no point other than the top of its head..  I learned that from my interactions with it..  If your waiting for evidence you will be waiting for a very long time..


----------



## SSDD (Jul 21, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Confounding said:
> ...



Nah...I don't expect anything at all from him or any of the others...Sometimes one of them will make a complaint about the fact that the reconstructions are are taken from ice cores from above the arctic circle...and the antarctic circle....then I have to drag out all the claims by nasa, giss, ipcc, et al who say that the arctic regions are the "canary in the coal mine" and where the arctic and antarctic go, so goes the rest of the globe...so they have to either accept that the world was warmer or accept that nasa, giss, ipcc,  etc are full of baloney.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 21, 2018)

Confounding said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Confounding said:
> ...



We start by pointing out to the idiots of the world that they are dupes...I can't help but notice that you are still hurling your impotent insults around...and your logical fallacies.  What you aren't hurling around is the first piece of observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...cause there is none...ergo, you are a dupe...a useful idiot..

Know what the opposite of skeptical is?       Gullible.


----------



## westwall (Jul 21, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> Remember this, from the first Republican President?
> 
> *You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.*
> 
> ...






That's why the MSM is running so much propaganda trying to rile the natives up again.


----------



## Confounding (Jul 21, 2018)

SSDD said:


> We start by pointing out to the idiots of the world that they are dupes



You mean the scientists, right?


----------



## miketx (Jul 21, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> Looks like Conservative misinformation is working


More like liberals have shown the world what they are. The GW scam is dead.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 21, 2018)

Confounding said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > We start by pointing out to the idiots of the world that they are dupes
> ...



This being a political issue, no not scientists....regular people who vote for the politicians that have been flushing billions down the toilet on the climate scam...when the money required to support the narrative dries up, then the climate scam dies.

Now, about that single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.  Got anything?  Of course you don't...nothing but impotent insults, mewling, and logical fallacies.

You know that every time you post, without posting that single shred of observed, measured data which would shut me down and make me your bitch you just look weaker and more stupid don't you?  Step on up to the plate goober and knock it out of the park for all the other warmers...

Oh...that's right.. no actual data to shut me up with...just more logical fallacy, insult, and insensate bovine mewling...lets hear it...come on warmer..be my bitch....mewl for me....come on..mewl


----------



## Confounding (Jul 21, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Why are you just sitting on this gold mine? You could be famous. You should go straight to the nearest institution of science and put them in their place before somebody else cashes in on this. Go, Dingus. I look forward to seeing your name in science magazines.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 21, 2018)

Confounding said:


> Why are you just sitting on this gold mine? You could be famous. You should go straight to the nearest institution of science and put them in their place before somebody else cashes in on this. Fame and glory await, Dingus.



Why are you not shutting me down with a single shred of observed, measured data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability?  Why are you standing there looking like an impotent dupe who believes so strongly in something that isn't supported by the first piece of actual evidence?  

Come on warmer...mewl some more for me...mewl like there is no tomorrow...Go on and on and on with your impotent sniveling...Show us that you have nothing but talk...and even that is about as weak as it gets.


----------



## miketx (Jul 21, 2018)

Confounding said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Confounding said:
> ...


Because liberals don't listen to people, that's why.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 21, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> > Why are you just sitting on this gold mine? You could be famous. You should go straight to the nearest institution of science and put them in their place before somebody else cashes in on this. Fame and glory await, Dingus.
> ...



Gawd I love watching people toy with idiots....

Cat Mouse GIF - Cat Mouse Play - Discover & Share GIFs

Still waiting for even one empirical fact...


----------



## Confounding (Jul 21, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Why are you not shutting me down with a single shred of observed, measured data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability?  Why are you standing there looking like an impotent dupe who believes so strongly in something that isn't supported by the first piece of actual evidence?
> 
> Come on warmer...mewl some more for me...mewl like there is no tomorrow...Go on and on and on with your impotent sniveling...Show us that you have nothing but talk...and even that is about as weak as it gets.



No, I'm serious. You have convinced me. You need to inform the scientific community.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 21, 2018)

SSDD said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Confounding said:
> ...


Yup

Warming is great if you enjoy hurricanes


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 21, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Wow   

Even that lie has been shredded and yet you use it over and over again.....


----------



## Coyote (Jul 21, 2018)

The poll said nothing about whether Americans believed global warming was real.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 21, 2018)

Coyote said:


> The poll said nothing about whether Americans believed global warming was real.


That would be the point..  They were asked for their top concerns and AGW didn't make it in the top 36..

The fact it is bogus as a threat, is commonsense and science.


----------



## Confounding (Jul 21, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> The fact it is bogus as a threat, is commonsense and science.



According to all of the rednecks that have figured out the truth. Scientists say otherwise, but what do they know?


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 21, 2018)

Confounding said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > We start by pointing out to the idiots of the world that they are dupes
> ...



You mean THESE scientists?

1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism 

or

100+ Papers – Sun Drives Climate

or

75 Papers Find Extremely Low CO2 Climate Sensitivity

or

Part 1. Natural Climate Change Observation, Reconstruction
Part 2. Natural Mechanisms Of Weather, Climate Change
Part 3. Unsettled Science, Failed Climate Modeling

and many more I can bring up to show that *THOUSANDS* of scientists do not agree that CO2 is the  driver of weather/climate phenomenon.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 21, 2018)

Confounding said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > The fact it is bogus as a threat, is commonsense and science.
> ...


 And you have yet to produce any empirical evidence...

Appeals to authority is all you got....  You really are stupid....


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 21, 2018)

Coyote said:


> The poll said nothing about whether Americans believed global warming was real.



Agreed, but that is the point, people were asked what the MOST important problem facing this country today.

Climate change/global warming was not on their minds in their replies.


----------



## Confounding (Jul 21, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Popular Technology - Media Bias/Fact Check



> *CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE*
> Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category _may_ publish unverifiable information that is _not always_ supported by evidence. These sources _may_ be untrustworthy for credible/verifiable information, therefore fact checking and further investigation is recommended.
> 
> Popular Technology is a news website that focuses primarily on climate science, which is odd as their name is related to technology. The founders and contributors to this website all hold Ph.D’s in a variety of scientific fields, unfortunately *none of them are within the field of climate science*. While not directly stated, the primary mission of this website is to debunk the consensus that climate change (global warming) is occurring and is strongly influenced by human activities. Popular Technology only publishes research articles that are contrary to the scientific consensus on climate change. Interestingly, they side with the consensus when it comes to 9/11 conspiracies about how the Towers fell. Overall, per our policy, any source that rejects the known consensus of science is placed in the pseudoscience category.



NoTricksZone is another conspiracy bullshit blogging website. 

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/scientific-papers-global-warming-myth/



> On 6 June 2017, Breitbart News ran an article titled “‘Global Warming’ Is a Myth, Say 58 Scientific Papers in 2017”. This article, which is in essence merely a link to a post from a blog that goes by the name “No Tricks Zone” and some added musings on “grant-troughing scientists,” “huxter politicians,” “scaremongering green activists,” and “brainwashed mainstream media environmental correspondents,” claims that this ragtag collection of studies proves that the long-standing scientific consensus on climate change is nothing but a myth.
> 
> The blog post Breitbart linked to is a list of 80 graphs (so many graphs!) taken from 58 studies. The analysis of the findings presented by No Tricks Zone is crude, misinformed, and riddled with errors.



Another Day, Another Distortive Attack On Climate Change

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/400-papers-published-in-2017-prove-that-global-warming-is-myth/


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 21, 2018)

Confounding said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Confounding said:
> ...



*Bwahahahahahahahahaha!!!*

You are so pathetic it is funny to see a warmist ignoramus lemming automatically dismiss THOUSANDS of peer reviewed published papers with a wave of your arm.

You are making it clear you run on bullshit and stupidity.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 21, 2018)

Confounding said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Confounding said:
> ...


You don't have a damn clue...  This is why idiots like you aren't worth wasting time on... your not intelligent enough to debate facts..  You probably eat up CNN AND SkepticalShitScience as truth...


----------



## Confounding (Jul 21, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...



You get your scientific information from conspiracy blogs. The consensus is known and undeniable. Most skeptics will admit at least that much. If you think AGW is bullshit then you think the vast majority of climate scientists are full of shit, which is fine. Apparently they don't understand what you do.


----------



## Confounding (Jul 21, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> your not intelligent enough



Whatever you say, Bob.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 21, 2018)

Confounding said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Confounding said:
> ...



Your ignorance is vivid here,

No I read many science papers in the links I posted, you read ZERO papers since you are here to make a complete fool of yourself in your denial that they exist and were indeed published in many science *journals:*

Example from the 1350+ papers link:

*"Journal Citation List:* (Count: 357)
AAPG Bulletin
Academic Questions
Advances in Atmospheric Sciences
Advances in Geosciences
Advances in Global Change Research
Advances in Meteorology
Advances in Space Research
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology
Agricultural Meteorology
Agricultural Water Management
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment
Agronomy Journal
Ambio
American Journal of Botany
American Journal of Human Biology
Annales Geophysicae
Annals of Applied Statistics
Annals of Glaciology
Annual Review of Energy and the Environment
Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics
Antiquity
Applied Energy
Applied Physics Research
Aquatic Botany
Arabian Journal of Geosciences
Arctic and Alpine Research
Area
Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences
Asia Pacific Journal of Environmental Law
Astronautics and Aeronautics
Astronomical Notes
Astronomy & Astrophysics
Astronomy & Geophysics
Astrophysics and Space Science
Astrophysics and Space Science Library
Astrophysics and Space Sciences Transactions
Atmosfera
Atmospheric and Climate Sciences
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions
Atmospheric Environment
Atmospheric Environment Part B: Urban Atmosphere 
Atmospheric Research
Atmospheric Science Letters
Australian Journal of Emergency Management"

There are over 250 more in the LINK


----------



## Confounding (Jul 21, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...



Do you have any links that aren't from known conspiracy websites? Again, the consensus in undeniable if you live in reality. Most skeptics aren't stupid enough to argue that point. For every skeptic paper out there there's 100 others that support AGW claims.


----------



## Confounding (Jul 21, 2018)

Here are some links from websites that are actually reputable.

Causes | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet



> *Most climate scientists agree* the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the "greenhouse effect"*1* — warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space.



Nasa: Earth is warming at a pace 'unprecedented in 1,000 years'

Nasa said that records of temperature that go back far further, taken via analysis of ice cores and sediments, suggest that the warming of recent decades is out of step with any period over the past millennium.

The top ten global warming 'skeptic' arguments answered | Dana Nuccitelli

Even those rare skeptic scientists agree that at least some of the warming is caused by humans.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 21, 2018)

Confounding said:


> Here are some links from a website that is actually reputable.
> 
> Causes | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
> 
> Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet


LOL...

Tell me consensus man, in your own words, what is the core premise of AGW?


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 21, 2018)

Confounding said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Confounding said:
> ...



You are indeed stupid as hell since I have given you access to over 2,000 published science research that are found in published science journals, again from the 1350+ link are papers you could have seen for yourself they came straight from science journals such as these few examples:


Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climate change? (PDF)
_(Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Volume 94, Number 16, pp. 8335-8342, August 1997)
- Richard S. Lindzen_

The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications (PDF)
_(Energy & Environment, Volume 16, Number 1, pp. 69-100, January 2005)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick_

The Climatological Significance of a Doubling of Earth's Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration
_(Science, Volume 207, Issue 4438, pp. 1462-1463, March 1980)
- Sherwood B. Idso_


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 21, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> According to the latest Gallup poll, NOBODY thinks global warming is our most important problem


That's because Americans are dumbasses. Hell, almost half of them voted for Trump.

Now go back and ask those same people if they're worried that future natural disasters are going to be more intense, more extreme, more costly and they will overwhelmingly say yes.

Climate change. Just depends on how you ask it.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 21, 2018)

"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*"


Well...

So much for credible site.... When it starts out with a bald face lie there isn't much hope for anything else...


----------



## Confounding (Jul 21, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...



Your conspiracy nonsense doesn't change the fact that most scientists, and especially climate scientists, agree that humans are impacting the environment. Even the skeptical scientists admit humans have _some_ level of impact. They only dispute the severity.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 21, 2018)

Synthaholic said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > According to the latest Gallup poll, NOBODY thinks global warming is our most important problem
> ...


I see being stupid as a rock is contagious among liberals..


----------



## Confounding (Jul 21, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> "Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*"
> 
> 
> Well...
> ...



97% believe humans impact the global temperature to varying degrees. If you actually knew what you were talking about you'd know that disputes to that claim involve how severe the different scientists think those impacts are. Some government officials mistakenly said 97% of them see man made climate change as an imminent threat. That part isn't true, but most of them still do believe it is an imminent threat, and 97% believe there is _some_ impact by humans.


----------



## Confounding (Jul 21, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climate change? (PDF)
> _(Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Volume 94, Number 16, pp. 8335-8342, August 1997)
> - Richard S. Lindzen_
> 
> ...



Oh, by the way, all three studies you linked are kind of old. The last one is actually from almost 40 fucking years ago. Are you serious right now? Do you have any idea how much more we understand now? Anyway, even if you include your studies from 40 years ago the fact remains that there is a large consensus among scientists. If you dispute that you are disputing reality. There are 100 papers that back AGW claims for every one your conspiracy blog website points at.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 21, 2018)

Confounding said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > "Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*"
> ...


LOL

Very few Atmospheric Physicists believe there is "any threat" let alone an imminent one.. I am in the majority with my colleagues.

Tell me what the core premise is....  I am waiting...


----------



## Confounding (Jul 21, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Like I said before, if you know something the vast majority of qualified scientists don't know then you should go get rich and famous. I look forward to reading about you.


----------



## Confounding (Jul 21, 2018)

Oh, and you're full of shit Bob. (shocking)



Billy_Bob said:


> Very few Atmospheric Physicists believe there is "any threat"



Global warming won't mean more stormy weather





> A study led by *atmospheric physicists* at the University of Toronto finds that global warming will not lead to an overall increasingly stormy atmosphere, a topic debated by scientists for decades. Instead, strong storms will become stronger while weak storms become weaker, and the cumulative result of the number of storms will remain unchanged.
> 
> "We know that with global warming we'll get more evaporation of the oceans," said Frederic Laliberte, a research associate at U of T's physics department and lead author of a study published this week in _Science_. "But circulation in the atmosphere is like a heat engine that requires fuel to do work, just like any combustion engine or a convection engine."



Atmospheric physicists largely agree that global warming is a thing.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 21, 2018)

Confounding said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Confounding said:
> ...



Never disputed that humans have some impact, but *strongly dispute* that CO2 is the driver of it. That is the DOMINANT theme of the Thousands of papers that make clear that additional CO2 has a small role, examples of papers you never read:

Springer

Infrared Atmospheric Emission

Boris M. Smirnov 2017

*"Abstract*
Emission of a flat layer, consisting of a gas with a weakly varied temperature in the perpendicular direction to the layer, is reduced to the case of the layer with a constant temperature. The average optical thickness of the Earth’s atmosphere in an infrared spectrum range is u&#x2248;2.7'>u≈2.7u≈2.7 and is determined on the basis of the energetic balance of the Earth and its atmosphere within the framework of the standard atmosphere model due to emission and surviving of infrared photons. It is shown that infrared emission of the atmosphere is determined mostly by atmospheric water. One can separate the flux of outgoing infrared radiation of the atmosphere from that towards the Earth. The fluxes due to rotation-vibration transitions of atmospheric CO2'>CO2CO2 molecules are evaluated. Doubling of the concentration of CO2'>CO2CO2 molecules in the atmosphere that is expected over 130 years leads to an increase of the average Earth temperature by (0.4&#x00B1;0.2)'>(0.4±0.2)(0.4±0.2) K mostly due to the flux towards the Earth if other atmospheric parameters are not varied. Various models with a water change give the temperature change (3.0&#x00B1;1.5)'>(3.0±1.5)(3.0±1.5) K at doubling of the CO2'>CO2CO2 molecule concentration. An observed temperature change (0.8&#x2218;C'>0.8∘C0.8∘C) during the industrial epoch may be realized if approximately 0.5&#x0025;'>0.5%0.5% of free water molecules become aerosols, and this testifies to an atmospheric instability."

and,

Climate Research

CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic’s view of potential climate change

Sherwood B. Idso* 1998

"ABSTRACT: Over the course of the past 2 decades, I have analyzed a number of natural phenomena that reveal how Earth’s near-surface air temperature responds to surface radiative perturbations. These studies all suggest that a 300 to 600 ppm doubling of the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration could raise the planet’s mean surface air temperature by only about 0.4°C. Even this modicum of warming may never be realized, however, for it could be negated by a number of planetary cooling forces that are intensified by warmer temperatures and by the strengthening of biological processes that are enhanced by the same rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration that drives the warming. Several of these cooling forces have individually been estimated to be of equivalent magnitude, but of opposite sign, to the typically predicted greenhouse effect of a doubling of the air’s CO2 content, which suggests to me that little net temperature change will ultimately result from the ongoing buildup of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere. Consequently, I am skeptical of the predictions of significant CO2-induced global warming that are being made by state-of-the-art climate models and believe that much more work on a wide variety of research fronts will be required to properly resolve the issue."

and,

Infrared absorption of atmospheric carbon dioxide

"Abstract
The well-known absorption properties of CO2 and the physics of thermal radiation permit to estimate the infrared absorption of the atmospheric CO2. The earth is considered as a homogeneous spherical black body emitter with a temperature of 288 K. An idealized atmosphere, the CO2 content of which is the only infrared absorber, surrounds the emitter. The CO2 concentration at sea level amounts to 400 ppm and the density exponentially tapers off with height. Accordingly, the average black body temperature contains the so-called greenhouse contribution. Over 200’000 discrete absorption lines of CO2 are used for the numerical calculations.  If the absorbed energy is converted entirely into heat, we deliberately overestimate the heat retention capability of CO2. The thermal occupation statistics of the CO2 energy states plays a key role in these calculations. The calculated heat retention is converted into a temperature increase, ∆T.  Doubling the present CO2 concentration only results in ∆T < 0.24 K.  At the present rate of CO2 concentration increase of 1.2% per year, it will take almost two hundred years to reach ten times the present concentration yielding ∆T < 0.80 K."


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 21, 2018)

Confounding said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Confounding said:
> ...


Come on consensus boy....  Pony up your understanding...  Tell me what the core premise is... no more of your pussy footing and dodging... No more appeals to authority... show me what you think you know...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 21, 2018)

Confounding said:


> Oh, and you're full of shit Bob. (shocking)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Again... No they do not... Because we understand how the atmosphere works to large extent and understand CO2 can not drive it.


----------



## Confounding (Jul 21, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> Never disputed that humans have some impact



LOL! Okay...



Sunsettommy said:


> but *strongly dispute* that CO2 is the driver of it. That is the DOMINANT theme of the Thousands of papers that make clear that additional CO2 has a small role, examples of papers you never read:



So you admit that even the *minority* skeptic papers acknowledge that humans are impacting global temperature. They simply dispute how much of it is caused by CO2. Well, okay, but the majority of scientists who *also agree that humans are impacting the environment* think CO2 plays a significant role.


----------



## Confounding (Jul 21, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Again... No they do not... Because we understand how the atmosphere works to large extent and understand CO2 can not drive it.



I don't believe you're an atmospheric physicist. Yes, there is a consensus even among atmospheric physicists that global warming is real. You're so full of shit it is pouring out of your ears.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 21, 2018)

Confounding said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Again... No they do not... Because we understand how the atmosphere works to large extent and understand CO2 can not drive it.
> ...


Again you conflate natural variation with man caused.  Because you can not tell me how you think man is causing it, I will call you out a liar.  SO please, tell me what you think the core premise is of AGW.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 21, 2018)

Confounding said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Confounding said:
> ...



You have been asked twice what the AGW is,


Confounding said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climate change? (PDF)
> ...



You are too stupid to realize that I just destroyed your claim that they are from conspiracy websites,

quoting YOU

"Do you have any links that aren't from known conspiracy websites? Again, the consensus in undeniable if you live in reality. Most skeptics aren't stupid enough to argue that point. For every skeptic paper out there there's 100 others that support AGW claims."

I proved with the main links and posted examples of published science papers that they are NOT coming from "conspiracy websites", they are coming from science journals. In several postings, I have proved that there are many published science papers that disputed the idea that CO2 is the dominant driver of climate, your replies are all wind and piss, you can't disappear the reality that THOUSANDS of skeptical published science papers exist.

You should stop right here since you are being utterly DESTROYED in this thread.


----------



## Confounding (Jul 21, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...




The majority of them believe humans are impacting global temperature. Look above. Even the terd agreeing with you admitted that humans are impacting global temperature. The *minority* skeptic papers only dispute the role of CO2, not that humans are the culprit.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 21, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



He doesn't know and twice has made this claim he never backs up:

"There are 100 papers that back AGW claims for every one your conspiracy blog website points at."

Notice he still implies skeptical papers exist only at blogs, despite being shown several times they are from science journals.

He is a pathetic warmist troll.


----------



## Confounding (Jul 21, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Okay, I acknowledge that a *minority* of scientists have published studies *within the last 50 years* that call into question the role of CO2 in man made climate change. The majority still think CO2 plays a large role. and pretty much all of them are saying human activity plays a role.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 21, 2018)

Confounding said:


> impacting


You just admitted defeat because impacting is not controlling or a major player in ANYTHING! 

Prove mans impact!  Show me the science and math...  Show me the empirical evidence proving your assumption...

How does it feel to get punked by a simple Masters Degree?


----------



## Confounding (Jul 21, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Confounding said:
> ...



A few posts up you actually admitted that humans play a role. You somehow think you're shutting down my argument by pointing out that some scientists call into question the role of CO2. There is still a massive consensus among scientists that humans are impacting global temperature.


----------



## Confounding (Jul 21, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> > impacting
> ...



Most scientists agree humans play a large role in global temperature rise. A minority dispute the role of CO2, but still acknowledge that humans are causing the problem. How much they believe humans are impacting it varies, but most believe it is moderate or severe.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 21, 2018)

Confounding said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


Hey moron... Define the roll...

First you have to define how it is going to create the impact. You have still failed to give me what the core premise is..


----------



## Confounding (Jul 21, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...



Unlike you I'm not a fucking idiot and I'm not going to pretend to be a climate scientist. I trust in the expertise of the most qualified people on the planet. When a giant majority of them tell us humans are fucking with global temperature I take that seriously.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 21, 2018)

Confounding said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Never disputed that humans have some impact
> ...



I have ALWAYS allowed for some CO2 effect you jackass! I have pointed out that it has a diminishing effect as they increase in the atmosphere and cause a greening world.

What I have been saying since I joined this forum that CO2 is NOT driving the warming trend or related weather events. I have repeatedly shown that the IPCC modeling scenarios are failures in the short term and doesn't have testability in the long term. I have shown that the IPCC's modeled per decade warming prediction/projections from 1990 onward are around 50% too warm.

CO2 by itself doesn't have a significant role, which even most warmists scientists agree. It is the Positive Feedback baloney they base their big warming projection trends on, not just the amount of CO2 molecules in the air.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 21, 2018)

Confounding said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Again... No they do not... Because we understand how the atmosphere works to large extent and understand CO2 can not drive it.
> ...



Your imbecilic reliance of consensus proves YOU are a science illiterate.


----------



## Confounding (Jul 21, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> What I have been saying since I joined this forum that CO2 is NOT driving the warming trend or related weather events.



But you agree that humans are?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 21, 2018)

Confounding said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Confounding said:
> ...


Nicely done...

You admit you don't have a fucking clue..  

This is why so many believed the lie in the first place..

1.)  Prove global temp changes are the result of mans impact.
2.)  Show your work


----------



## Confounding (Jul 21, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Yes, I am an imbecile for taking it seriously when the vast majority of the people most qualified to have an opinion about a subject tell us something about that subject.


----------



## Confounding (Jul 21, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



You're an idiot if you blow it off when the vast majority of experts in a field tell you something relating to their field. You think you know better than all of those scientists. That is astoundingly arrogant and stupid.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 21, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


He couldn't fight his way out of a wet paper bag.. He has no clue about what he is spouting.  The definition of useful idiot...


----------



## Confounding (Jul 21, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Confounding said:
> ...



Again, if all of the scientists are wrong you should go make yourself famous, Dingus. Or do you have no idea what you're talking about? At least I have the humility to admit I'm not an expert that has dedicated my life to this subject. It's asinine to blow off what the vast majority of those scientists are saying. I think you might actually be insane.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 21, 2018)

It is clear this little nebbish troll Confounding, refuses to answer questions given to him and still has yet to support this whopper:

"There are 100 papers that back AGW claims for every one your conspiracy blog website points at."

Waiting.... waiting.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 21, 2018)

Confounding said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Confounding said:
> ...


Oh Contra... You are a huge fucking idiot...

You have taken the bait, hook, line, and sinker...  You don't even know what your pontificating about... You don't have a clue about the science involved.

You refuse to even acknowledge you don't know jack...  and that is the most telling of all traits.. Your ignorant and wish to remain so...


----------



## Confounding (Jul 21, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



I have a decent understanding of the science because I have done research and I'm not an idiot. I'm just not going to speak as if I'm an expert because I'm not an arrogant retard like you. There is a large scientific consensus that says humans are impacting global temperature. If you blow that off you're a jackass.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 21, 2018)

Confounding said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Confounding said:
> ...



You keep pushing the Consensus and Authority fallacy over and over, which indicate that you don't understand how science research works.

Consensus has been wrong many times, which slowed down science research.

You are just another low brow warmist moron to make a fool of yourself in public with your stupidity and ignorance.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 21, 2018)

Confounding said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Confounding said:
> ...



Still waiting for the evidence from you:

"There are 100 papers that back AGW claims for every one your conspiracy blog website points at"

Waiting...……………. Waiting.

Come on it isn't hard to do.....


----------



## Confounding (Jul 21, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...



You don't understand this topic any more than I do. You probably understand it less in fact. I'm just not an arrogant asshole with the audacity to speak as if I am an expert. You're simply dumb if you think a scientific consensus is meaningless and doesn't need to be taken seriously.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 21, 2018)

Confounding said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Confounding said:
> ...



As usual your reply has NO substance in it, just scream is all you can do.


----------



## Confounding (Jul 21, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



I'm not going to waste my time proving what is already known, which is that the vast majority of scientists agree that humans impact global temperature. They didn't come to that conclusion without studies.


----------



## Confounding (Jul 21, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...



I cannot give you an expert opinion because I am not an expert, and neither are you. Go debate the scientific majority that agrees with what I am saying. They'll make you look like an imbecile because they are actually experts and know what they're talking about. Like other sane people I take it seriously when the majority of experts in a field say something about the field they're experts in. If you think they're wrong you should go publish your findings and become globally known as the nobody redneck that proved the scientific community wrong.


----------



## Confounding (Jul 21, 2018)

You two are actually too dumb/stubborn to realize you've been slain. This is why I don't usually bother to do anything but make fun of you retards, but you managed to pull me into it. Good job.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 21, 2018)

Confounding said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Confounding said:
> ...





Confounding said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Confounding said:
> ...





Confounding said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Confounding said:
> ...



In Liberal;

I don't know shit and your asking hard questions....  I need my safe space....


Too bad this one doesn't have a brain..  The tape is repeating itself over and over again...  An impressive failure of the liberal school system..


----------



## Muhammed (Jul 21, 2018)

Confounding said:


> The world would laugh at us if the abject stupidity in this country wasn't so dangerous. I've given up on trying to convince people like you that scientists the world over are not in on a conspiracy to scam us into giving them grant money. It's enough to know historians will look back and talk about how people like you were stupid as fuck.


Historians will file climategate with Piltdown Man.


----------



## Confounding (Jul 21, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



I'll be looking for your name is science news articles.

"Unqualified dumbass proves the majority of scientists all over the world wrong about global warming." 

That'd be a funny Onion article.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 21, 2018)

Confounding said:


> You two are actually too dumb/stubborn to realize you've been slain. This is why I don't usually bother to do anything but make fun of you retards, but you managed to pull me into it. Good job.


Let me see...

Asked for description of the AWG premise 6+ times this thread alone..  Check

Not once answered and never gave his interpretation of the premise let alone any empirical evidence to support his position...

Screams a logical fallacy each time confronted with facts... always answers with an appeal to authority...

Your an ignorant idiot and wish to remain so...


----------



## Confounding (Jul 21, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Your a ignorant idiot



You fail at basic grammar and you think you're justified in blowing off what the most qualified people in the world are telling you in regards to the field they work in. Good job, Dingus.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 21, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> > You two are actually too dumb/stubborn to realize you've been slain. This is why I don't usually bother to do anything but make fun of you retards, but you managed to pull me into it. Good job.
> ...



The Kid apparently refuses to back up his OWN claim when asked to provide the evidence:

Here is what this Kid wrote,

"There are 100 papers that back AGW claims for every one your conspiracy blog website points at"

Asked him THREE times to answer it, still waiting...….

Waiting for this loudmouth to answer it.

Waiting...…

Zzzzz……..


----------



## Confounding (Jul 21, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Confounding said:
> ...



I was using hyperbole to make a point, and in your desperation you're focusing on that hyperbole to try to save face. You've been destroyed thoroughly. I'm sorry you're too stupid to know it. If you know so much you should go make yourself rich and famous by proving the scientists wrong.


----------



## BoSoxGal (Jul 21, 2018)

skookerasbil said:


> Been saying it for 5 years.
> ...the evidence is daunting.
> 
> Even most young people laugh when "global warming" comes up for discussion. It was a fad for the hopelessly duped, many who now know the score and dont want to look like a jackass!.


Does it hurt being so utterly fucking moronic?


----------



## Confounding (Jul 21, 2018)

BoSoxGal said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Been saying it for 5 years.
> ...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 21, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Confounding said:
> ...


LOL

I hear you....

Have a good night Sun...  I need to be up for forecast conference call at 0400. Were looking at fall forecasts tomorrow...  Some of the charts are already cooling... Looking to be an early fall...

I have had enough stupid for one night..


----------



## talksalot (Jul 21, 2018)

The High Priest of "WE WILL CONTROL THE EARTH!" by controlling EVERY man woman and child on the planet is thankfully, no longer in office. 
We really needed a break.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jul 22, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> Looks like Conservative misinformation is working



Yes, it is better than the left wing disinformation.

We seem to have the upper hand.

We own the government.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jul 22, 2018)

Confounding said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Confounding said:
> ...



If you've worked in "science" like I have, you know that conclusions can often be as political as shit.

They don't bite the hand that feeds them especially when there is a gaggle of ass kissers who will bow to their every word.


----------



## fncceo (Jul 22, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> Think we can get Gore to give back the loot????



I think he spent it ...


----------



## fncceo (Jul 22, 2018)

Confounding said:


> I've given up on trying to convince people like you that scientists the world over are not in on a conspiracy to scam us into giving them grant money.



Promise?


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jul 22, 2018)

Confounding said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Confounding said:
> ...



The scientific community has not been able to prove itself right.

They can neither explain the past with models and they sure as fuck cannot predict the future.

So just what it is that they know ?


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jul 22, 2018)

Here is another expert....scam artist.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jul 22, 2018)

William D.  Balgord - Are Record Temperatures Evidence of Manmade Global Warming?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 22, 2018)

Confounding said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Why are you not shutting me down with a single shred of observed, measured data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability?  Why are you standing there looking like an impotent dupe who believes so strongly in something that isn't supported by the first piece of actual evidence?
> ...



So you are a misinformed dupe and a liar.  Exactly how low did you set the bar for yourself?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 22, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Sorry guy, that bit of misinformation has been debunked as well.  The actual data once again prove the models wrong.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 22, 2018)

Confounding said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > The fact it is bogus as a threat, is commonsense and science.
> ...



These days, it is an ever shrinking number of scientists as evidenced by the growing number of papers that are very skeptical of the AGW claims.  Now it is mostly the media and politicians propping up a smaller and smaller group spewing catastrophic warnings.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 22, 2018)

Confounding said:


> You get your scientific information from conspiracy blogs. The consensus is known and undeniable. Most skeptics will admit at least that much. If you think AGW is bullshit then you think the vast majority of climate scientists are full of shit, which is fine. Apparently they don't understand what you do.



Consensus is a political term.  Scientists...true scientists are skeptical by nature...hell, they can't even agree on what might cause gravity...in the absence of any observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis, what, other than money might make a group of people who are natural skeptics agree on anything?

You tell me.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 22, 2018)

Confounding said:


> Do you have any links that aren't from known conspiracy websites? Again, the consensus in undeniable if you live in reality. Most skeptics aren't stupid enough to argue that point. For every skeptic paper out there there's 100 others that support AGW claims.



If you live in reality, then you know that consensus is a political term and has nothing to do with science.

And alas, there aren't 100 papers supporting AGW to every paper which is skeptical.  That was true some years back when warmers were able to block any paper that was skeptical of AGW...those days are over.  There is a growing river of peer reviewed papers skeptical of the catastrophic claims made by warmers these days.  The AGW hypothesis is in its death throes....


----------



## SSDD (Jul 22, 2018)

Confounding said:


> Nasa: Earth is warming at a pace 'unprecedented in 1,000 years'
> 
> Nasa said that records of temperature that go back far further, taken via analysis of ice cores and sediments, suggest that the warming of recent decades is out of step with any period over the past millennium.



This is a prime example of how you have been duped...and clear evidence that you have never taken the time to actually look anything up for yourself.  Laziness or are you just not bright enough to do it?

Why do you suppose they chose to only go back 1000 years?  Any idea?  Since they talk about taking their evidence from ice cores, (which are the gold standard for temperature reconstruction) lets look at ice cores...

Here is the GISP2 ice core...taken from Greenland above the Arctic Circle.  One of the more important ice core reconstructions ever done.






Now does the reason they chose to claim that the temperatures we are seeing today are unprecedented in the past 1000 years?  In case you have a hard time with graphs like so many warmers do, let me help you out.  if you go back 1000 years on that chart, you will see that it meshes nicely with the end of the Medieval Warm Period...from that point the earth started cooling down to the low temperatures of the little ice age at which point, it started warming again and has been warming ever since.  Of course, we aren't up to the highs that they enjoyed during the medieval warm period and all the previous warm periods before that, but maybe we will get there.  Those were, after all the balmy temperatures that ushered in the rise of human civilization.

They chose 1000 years because they figured that the lemmings who supported them would lack the intellectual wattage required to look any further back and see that they had been duped.  They had these ice cores and deliberately chose 1000 years in order to misguide you into thinking that the climate we are seeing is somehow grossly unusual.  Had they shown the entire 10,000 year reconstruction that the ice core provided, there would have been no "drama" possible and people would have rightly laughed them out of business.

As you can see from this graph, if you can, in fact, read a graph, it clearly shows that most of the past 10,000 years have been warmer than the present,  In addition it shows temperatures dropping and rising at rates far faster, and for longer periods than anything we have ever seen.  As you can see, natural variability is a wild ride..and that is why I say that there is no observed, measured data which supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability because we aren't even close to the limits of natural variability...and if you go back more than 10,000 years, way back to the time when temperatures started dropping into the ice age that we are still in, you will see temperatures so high, that no ice existed at either pole...and during those times, the whole earth was green and life flourished everywhere.  Most of the species we know came into being during that time.

Face it guy...you have been duped.  Right there is undeniable evidence that they set out to deliberately trick you..and the trick succeeded in spades.  Now the $64,000.00 question is.....do you intend to remain tricked?

My bet is yes.  You are to emotionally invested in the scam to ever allow something like evidence that you were tricked change your mind.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 22, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...




And seems to be mandatory for that group.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 22, 2018)

Synthaholic said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > According to the latest Gallup poll, NOBODY thinks global warming is our most important problem
> ...



Only failing models predict worse future disasters...observations show otherwise.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 22, 2018)

Confounding said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Confounding said:
> ...





"I'm not going to waste my time blah blah blah...."

Yet you keep posting the same 'is not, isssssss noootttttttt!!!!' 


To put it simply, you've become our best source of Greenhouse Gases.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 22, 2018)

Confounding said:


> Your conspiracy nonsense doesn't change the fact that most scientists, and especially climate scientists, agree that humans are impacting the environment. Even the skeptical scientists admit humans have _some_ level of impact. They only dispute the severity.



Climate science is a soft science...not rigorously performed as evidenced by the complete lack of observed, measured data which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.  Climate science is for people who aren't smart enough to get through the much more difficult curriculum of the hard sciences like physics, chemistry, and engineering.  An engineer with a BS could easily teach any level of course required for a PhD in climate science...while a PhD in climate science would be lost trying to teach the 4th year maths, physics, and chemistry that physicists, chemists, and engineers are required to take.

Guess you didn't know that either...anyone who could be fooled by that 1000 year claim would be easily fooled by any number of ruses.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 22, 2018)

Confounding said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Confounding said:
> ...





There is no such 'scientific majority'....

Morons....you....have been trained to accept the phrase as though it were fact.



*"The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'*
*What is the origin of the false belief—constantly repeated—that almost all scientists agree about global warming?*

...John Kerry warned graduating students at Boston College of the "crippling consequences" of climate change. "Ninety-seven percent of the world's scientists," he added, "tell us this is urgent."

Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.


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."
_Mr. Bast is president of the Heartland Institute. Dr. Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer on NASA’s Aqua satellite._
The Myth of the Climate Change ‘97%’ | The Freedom Pub


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 22, 2018)

Muhammed said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> > The world would laugh at us if the abject stupidity in this country wasn't so dangerous. I've given up on trying to convince people like you that scientists the world over are not in on a conspiracy to scam us into giving them grant money. It's enough to know historians will look back and talk about how people like you were stupid as fuck.
> ...



....unless they're Liberals, and their career required the lock-step response.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 22, 2018)

BoSoxGal said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Been saying it for 5 years.
> ...




As soon as one sees the vulgarity, one recognizes a Hillary voter.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 22, 2018)

fncceo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Think we can get Gore to give back the loot????
> ...





....on a beach house, after predicting the rise of the oceans....


----------



## SSDD (Jul 22, 2018)

Confounding said:


> Oh, by the way, all three studies you linked are kind of old. The last one is actually from almost 40 fucking years ago. Are you serious right now? Do you have any idea how much more we understand now? Anyway, even if you include your studies from 40 years ago the fact remains that there is a large consensus among scientists. If you dispute that you are disputing reality. There are 100 papers that back AGW claims for every one your conspiracy blog website points at.



Want some new stuff.  No problem. There is plenty of it.  There have been 254 of them published in the first 6 months of 2018 alone.

The skepticism falls into 4 main categories:

1)  Natural mechanisms play a far more important role in climate than alarmist have ever admitted, and that changes in climate patterns are far less pronounced than alarmists have claimed.

2) Warming, sea levels, glacier and sea ice retreat, hurricane and drought intensities in the modern era are neither unprecedented or remarkable....nor do they even approach the range of natural variability.

3)  Computer climate models are neither reliable or consistently accurate and projections of future climate are little more than wild assed guesses since the uncertainty and error ranges are enormous in a non linear system such as earth's climate.

4)  Current emissions reduction policies, especially related to the push for renewables are most often effective, and even harmful to the environment whereas elevated CO2 and a warmer climate provide numerous benefits not mentioned by the alarmist community.

So where would you like to start? I can provide as much new research as you care to look at.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 22, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...





It's the way Liberals protect themselves against Antifa.....


----------



## SSDD (Jul 22, 2018)

Confounding said:


> Okay, I acknowledge that a *minority* of scientists have published studies *within the last 50 years* that call into question the role of CO2 in man made climate change. The majority still think CO2 plays a large role. and pretty much all of them are saying human activity plays a role.



Your ignorance is showing...you are being led, and misled by people who set out to trick you.  I showed you clear evidence of one such instance.  Are you stupid enough to remain tricked?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 22, 2018)

Confounding said:


> Yes, I am an imbecile for taking it seriously when the vast majority of the people most qualified to have an opinion about a subject tell us something about that subject.



No..you are an imbecile for believing that "vast majority of scientists" bullshit in the first place.  You wanted to believe because of your politics and no amount of debunking of that lie could ever convince you.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 22, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> It is clear this little nebbish troll Confounding, refuses to answer questions given to him and still has yet to support this whopper:
> 
> "There are 100 papers that back AGW claims for every one your conspiracy blog website points at."
> 
> Waiting.... waiting.



What is amusing is how they keep digging...even when shown clear and convincing evidence that they have been duped, they keep digging that hole deeper.  Talk about being in a state of denial.

Look back through this thread and count the number of credible sources provided by skeptics vs the warmist troll..


----------



## SSDD (Jul 22, 2018)

Confounding said:


> I have a decent understanding of the science because I have done research and I'm not an idiot. I'm just not going to speak as if I'm an expert because I'm not an arrogant retard like you. There is a large scientific consensus that says humans are impacting global temperature. If you blow that off you're a jackass.



No you don't.  That is a bald faced lie.  The bullshit you have put up thus far only shows how easily you are fooled...like that unprecedented warming for the past 1000 years misdirection you fell for.  You think that sort of drek is evidence supporting AGW over natural variability...one look at the rest of the graph that they didn't show you should put that error to rest.

Whenever you wack jobs can be goaded into providing the evidence that has convinced you, it is invariably bullshit like that 1000 year warming claim...side show huxterism of the highest order designed to fool the great unwashed....and idiots like you gobble it up and vote for politicians who keep the money flowing so the scam can continue.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 22, 2018)

Confounding said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Confounding said:
> ...



What observed measured evidence convinced them?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 22, 2018)

Confounding said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Your a ignorant idiot
> ...



So now you are reduced to correcting grammar mistakes?  How about punctuation, do you correct that as well?  Ever read a PhD thesis before graduate students go through it and correct the grammar and punctuation?  

You are clearly a putz.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 22, 2018)

Confounding said:


> [
> 
> I was using hyperbole to make a point, and in your desperation you're focusing on that hyperbole to try to save face. You've been destroyed thoroughly. I'm sorry you're too stupid to know it. If you know so much you should go make yourself rich and famous by proving the scientists wrong.



No, you are using hyperbole because it is just about all you have.  At this point, you are using hyperbole to support logical fallacies.  And you think you have destroyed anything other than what meager credibility you had when you entered this conversation?

Destroying an opponents argument requires evidence to support your own position over theirs....like when I showed you that the claim of unprecedented warming in the past 1000 years was nothing more than a trick designed to lead you to believe that the present climate was in some way unusual and unprecedented....the rest of the graph showed the trick...alas, it is you who have been destroyed but you just aren't bright enough to get it.  You are stupid enough to believe that hyperbole and logical fallacies constitute a rational argument...My bet is that you don't even realize that the bulk of your argument (97% of scientists meme) is nothing more than a logical fallacy.  You have no argument....you have dogma...and you have no evidence to back it up.


----------



## Marion Morrison (Jul 22, 2018)

Confounding said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > This verbiage outs you as a paid for UN Agenda Shill
> ...



Wrong.

He's got you pegged.


----------



## Confounding (Jul 22, 2018)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> So just what it is that they know ?



Nothing apparently.


----------



## Confounding (Jul 22, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



You and your conspiracy websites are not more credible than scientists, sorry. I don't and I never will take you seriously. You're ignorant, and so incredibly arrogant that you can dismiss scientists with a wave of your hand.


----------



## Confounding (Jul 22, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> > Nasa: Earth is warming at a pace 'unprecedented in 1,000 years'
> ...



Take your findings and become famous.


----------



## Confounding (Jul 22, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...



That's nice honey.


----------



## Confounding (Jul 22, 2018)

Marion Morrison said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



You think I'm a paid UN shill? I guess you're a fucking idiot too.


----------



## Confounding (Jul 22, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Your ignorance is showing...you are being led, and misled by people who set out to trick you.



You mean the scientists all over the world, right?



SSDD said:


> I showed you clear evidence of one such instance.  Are you stupid enough to remain tricked?



I'm not stupid or arrogant enough to tell the scientific community it's wrong when I'm not a scientist. That's the main difference between us. I'm not going to argue with my surgeon either.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 22, 2018)

Confounding said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Confounding said:
> ...




What's really nice is how I reduce you to the same muttering over and over.


----------



## Confounding (Jul 22, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> > I have a decent understanding of the science because I have done research and I'm not an idiot. I'm just not going to speak as if I'm an expert because I'm not an arrogant retard like you. There is a large scientific consensus that says humans are impacting global temperature. If you blow that off you're a jackass.
> ...



Scientists are in on a global conspiracy. Got it.


----------



## Confounding (Jul 22, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



That's nice honey.


----------



## Marion Morrison (Jul 22, 2018)

Confounding said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> > Confounding said:
> ...



Worse! You're a UN useful idiot for free.


----------



## Confounding (Jul 22, 2018)

Marion Morrison said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> > Marion Morrison said:
> ...



So what is it that you people believe about the scientists exactly? I'd like clarification. Are they all just stupid and can't figure out what you have? Are scientists the world over knowingly in on a scam? Explain to me how you know that the scientists have come to the wrong conclusion. How does that happen?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 22, 2018)

Confounding said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Confounding said:
> ...




What conspiracy web site...those were the graphs published by the very people who duped you.  They simply didn't show you the whole picture because then, even a goob like you wouldn't have been fooled. 

Calling the truth a conspiracy is no more an effective argument than your hyperbole and logical fallacies...it just shows that you aren't very bright.

But it is as I predicted...even when you see evidence that you have been tricked, you aren't bright enough to alter your thinking...


----------



## SSDD (Jul 22, 2018)

Confounding said:


> Take your findings and become famous.



So no actual argument...just the same old logical fallacy we have all become accustomed to.  Only a real idiot chooses to remain a dupe when he is shown that he has been fooled.


----------



## Confounding (Jul 22, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



You are a doofus on the internet that can barely use English. They are incredibly intelligent people that have dedicated their lives to the subject they are talking about. I'm not going to pretend I'm a scientist or that I know better than scientists; it's as simple as that. The conversation ends there for me. I really don't care what you think you know and I never will. There is not a global scientific conspiracy. That's the tinfoil nonsense you come up with out of desperation to defend your view that is more political than scientific.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 22, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



It is all he has...Most dupes are at least creative enough to construct elaborate stories about how they aren't duped...this one just spews the same old logical fallacy over and over.


----------



## Confounding (Jul 22, 2018)

SSDD said:


> when he is shown that he has been fooled.



It's a nonstarter. You are not qualified to educate people about the climate.


----------



## Confounding (Jul 22, 2018)

SSDD said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Confounding said:
> ...



I think it's a pretty good argument to say the scientists agree with me and disagree with you. To anybody with a brain that ends it. There is not a global conspiracy.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 22, 2018)

Confounding said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Confounding said:
> ...



Is this really all you have?  I showed you a deliberate misdirection made by those "incredibly intelligent" people.  Done with the intent of misinforming you.  You think bright people aren't capable of misdirecting less intelligent people for fun and profit?  Here is a newsflash for you...the most successful fraudsters out there are very intelligent...many bordering or exceeding the genius level....and many of them have dedicated their lives to defrauding people.

The very fact that you are able to ignore a genuine, undeniable example of the sort of fraud they are perpetrating speaks volumes about your level of intelligence.


----------



## Confounding (Jul 22, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Scientists all over the world are not fraudsters you incredible imbecile. There wouldn't be a consensus if the evidence they have is nonsense. You're some unscientific tinfoil hat wearing clown that is arrogant enough to dismiss the entire scientific community. If the most qualified people on Earth can't convince your dumb ass, why would I even bother? It's a waste of time. You are not somebody that is open to having their mind changed. Go take your findings to a scientist and explain to them why they are wrong.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 22, 2018)

Confounding said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Your ignorance is showing...you are being led, and misled by people who set out to trick you.
> ...



Well s0n you dont seem to get it.....

The science doesnt matter for sick unless the scientists can make their case. We've been told for 10 years the science is decided....but nobody is caring. Token climate action is ghey....and all we've seen. 

What the climate nutters fail to ever comprehend is....people with real lives and real responsibilities have waaaaaaaaaaaaay too much other shit to worry about. Worry about the 3mm rise in the sea level?. Cmon now....duh.....shit is peripheral for most everybody. The k00ks might not like that but sorry....that's the way it is!

Look at this thread...20 pages in a day. One reason.....epic lOsInG makes heads explode and progressives aren't adept at dealing with bumpy cucumbers.

Nobody cares about the science s0ns!!


----------



## SSDD (Jul 22, 2018)

Confounding said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Your ignorance is showing...you are being led, and misled by people who set out to trick you.
> ...



So you are saying that you aren't bright enough to read a very simple graph?  Is that what you are saying?  It isn't as if you have to be a rocket scientist to understand climate science..and it doesn't take any more than average intelligence to spot a deliberate trick.  Since you clearly fall below the average, here let me help you out.

this is the graph published by the people who said that they studied ice cores to determine that the warming of the present is unprecedented in the past 1000 years.  Well, it is unprecedented in the past 1000 years.  Then they show you the past 1000 years of this very graph and tell you a wild tale about how man is altering the global climate and that we are all headed for catastrophe...and you obviously believed it since you are defending them.


Now, be honest if you have it in you....what would be your response had they shown you the entire graph rather than just the past 1000 years and told you that the warming we are seeing is unprecedented and that we are all headed for catastrophe?  Surely you can look at that graph and see that the warming since the little ice age ended is in no way unusual, or extraordinary, or unprecedented...Are you at least that bright?


----------



## Confounding (Jul 22, 2018)

skookerasbil said:


> Nobody cares about the science s0ns!!



I'm aware.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 22, 2018)

SSDD said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Confounding said:
> ...





For the weakest of us, indoctrination is indelible.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 22, 2018)

Confounding said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > when he is shown that he has been fooled.
> ...



You have no idea what my education or qualifications are.  One more instance of you speaking from ignorance.  Do you have any actual knowledge base behind all your talk, or to you just say whatever comes to mind without regard to whether you can actually back it up or not?


----------



## Confounding (Jul 22, 2018)

SSDD said:


> It isn't as if you have to be a rocket scientist to understand climate science



You and I don't understand climate science as well as the global body of scientists that disagree with you. It's a nonstarter as I said earlier. You lack the credentials to tell me they're wrong.


----------



## Confounding (Jul 22, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Are you a scientist?


----------



## Confounding (Jul 22, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Says the home schooled creationist.


----------



## deanrd (Jul 22, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> Remember this, from the first Republican President?
> 
> *You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.*
> 
> ...


When have we ever had such a nut job for president?  Remember when your kind claimed to the be the party of "Family Values"?  We didn't know you meant "crime" family.

When your kind compares Trump to Obama or Clinton, the absurdity becomes laughably obvious.

Any other headlines about anything are swallowed up. 

Babies in dirty diapers and lice in cages? 

An incredible idea is handing over American citizens to Russians for interrogation?

Canceling military exercises are too expensive but a military parade costing the same amount is not?

Republicans have lost their fuking minds.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 22, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Sad but to incredibly true.  He is unable to see which side is providing actual data in support of our position.  It is a sad commentary on the abject failure of our educational system.  Indoctrination has become the norm and education and developing critical thinking skills has gone out the window.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 22, 2018)

Confounding said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Any evidence to back that claim up or are you now reduced to the level of a cornered animal lashing out at anyone you perceive as a threat to your belief?


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 22, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Hardly

Heat generates hurricanes

More heat= more energy= bigger hurricanes


----------



## SSDD (Jul 22, 2018)

deanrd said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Remember this, from the first Republican President?
> ...



Well no..we don't compare him to obama or clinton.  Neither one of those "presidents' ever came close to lowering the unemployment rates to what we are seeing today...neither of them ever allowed you to keep as much of what you earn as you get to keep today.  Neither of them ever posted economic growth figures even close to what we are seeing today.  So no...we don't compare trump to those guys...he is clearly outperforming them where it matters.


----------



## toobfreak (Jul 22, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> Remember this, from the first Republican President?
> 
> *You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.*
> Looks like the Global Warming Scam has run its course.
> ...




That is because climate is a pressure mechanism and even if man's activities are affecting it, in the coming decades as we slowly shed ourselves of the need for fossil fuels and newer and greener technologies finally become increasingly viable, as soon as man begins to remove his outside influence, the Earth climate will revert back to the state of balance it always naturally seeks.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 22, 2018)

Confounding said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Confounding said:
> ...



I work as a senior technician in a laboratory in the research triangle area of the Raliegh, Durham, Chapel Hill region of North Carolina, and have worked there for the past 18 years.  I am soon to retire and I have more than enough education to understand climate science...hell it doesn't take much more than a high school education (if you went to private school) to understand climate science...it is, after all, a soft science, not to be confused with chemistry, physics, engineering etc.


----------



## deanrd (Jul 22, 2018)

SSDD said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


The majority of Republicans say colleges are bad for America (yes, really)

Pew: Most Republicans View Higher Education as Bad for America

Fuking hilarious.  People from foreign  countries send their children here to not only go to college but to high school because they believe an American education is the best in the world.

Then you have Republicans who think American education is riddled with "fact" and therefore, cannot be trusted. 

You have millions of white Republicans living in Appalachia.  Many places in Appalachia, people don't have running water or electricity which make them poorer than many of those sh!thole countries Trump talks about.  Appalachia is the US biggest sinkholes of free money and welfare.  And they vote almost exclusively Republican.  Hilarious!


----------



## SSDD (Jul 22, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Actually it is the temperature difference between the poles and the equator that drive hurricanes...if all the ice melted and the poles got quite a bit warmer, hurricanes would be a thing of the past.


----------



## Confounding (Jul 22, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



I'm bored now. 

In conclusion...

You are not a climate scientist. Regardless of what you think, you do not understand the topic as well as you think you do. You are not qualified. A few graphs you found online doesn't make you qualified. I will never entertain an argument that operates on the premise that all of the scientists are wrong, ever. It's not illogical or stupid to say I trust the scientists all over the world that are telling us about the field they are experts in. There is not a global conspiracy among scientists to suppress the truth about climate change. If the most qualified people on Earth can't convince you I'd certainly be wasting my time in trying to do so. Have a great day.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 22, 2018)

deanrd said:


> The majority of Republicans say colleges are bad for America (yes, really)
> 
> Pew: Most Republicans View Higher Education as Bad for America
> 
> ...



Guess you never went to college and learned to comprehend what you read.  It isn't the education that is bad, it is the liberal politics that is instilled in students who have already been indoctrinated in liberal philosophy for 12 years through grade school.  Education is great...indoctrination into a political philosophy isn't.  That is how you end up with nazis, or old style soviet socialism...people who are indoctrinated are unable to force the consequences of their actions.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 22, 2018)

Confounding said:


> I'm bored now



Usual state of the less intelligent...no flashing lights, no loud noise, no bright colors and you are bored.  Can't stand to be challenged to actually think so you say you are bored rather than come up with a rational defense for your position.

It must suck to be that stupid.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 22, 2018)

Confounding said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




I wasn't home schooled, although home schooling results in far better students than government schooling.....and my educational resume is far broader and deeper than yours.

Wanna compare?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 22, 2018)

deanrd said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Remember this, from the first Republican President?
> ...





"When have we ever had such a nut job for president?"

Two years ago.



You Leftists would give an appendage for the achievements of Trump.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 22, 2018)

deanrd said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Noise s0n..... it only matters who is winning!


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 22, 2018)

SSDD said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




They have the advantage of the embrace of the mob.

That's what the weaklings need and require.....and that value surpasses knowledge, and the desire to think for themselves.


*Indoctrination is not the result of thought, analysis, or insight. It is the result of hissing at Emanuel Goldstein, as in "1984."*



The first defector from Stalin's 'paradise,' Victor Kravchenko, described the process:

_The new history" became possible... "study" of the new version was made obligatory for all responsible Party people. History classes met nearly every night in this period and lecturers from Sverdlovsk came to our town to help hammer home the lies, while most of us fumed inwardly. .... *But even the most gigantic lie, by dint of infinite repetition, takes root; Stalin knew this before Hitler discovered it.* As I looked on I could see terrible falsehoods, at first accepted under pressure, become established as unquestioned "facts," particularly among younger people without personal experience to the contrary to bother them."_
Text collection


Here is America's version:

“The federally funded “National History Standards” for elementary schools were released in 1994, cemented a revisionist view of American Communism for schoolteachers, as the guide mentions McCarthy over twenty times, while Edison and the Wright Brothers got no mention. “It …repeatedly condemns McCarthyism as an unmitigated evil…[but] the Hiss-Chambers and Rosenberg cases, the two dominant controversies of the anticommunist era, are described with bland, neutral language crafted to keep from implying guilt while not being quite so foolhardy as to actually assert innocence..’National Standards’…implies that the cases are part and parcel of the McCartyite horror.” From “In Denial,” by Haynes and Klehr, pg. 151


Global Governance....masquerading as Global Warming....is their endgame.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 22, 2018)

SSDD said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 22, 2018)

deanrd said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...





Everything Liberals touch turns to ......mud.

Even an Ivy League education today.....imagine, Tree Climbing......the sort of thing you probably have a degree of expertise with....


*Tree Climbing (PE 1657)*


*Schedule:*

Tree Climbing Friday

Friday    9/7/18   1:30pm to 6:30pm
Friday     9/14/18   1:30pm to 6:30pm
Friday     9/22/18   1:30pm to 6:30pm
Friday     9/28/18   1:30pm to 6:30pm
*Fri-Sat    9/28-29/18   8:00pm to 8:00am

Tree Climbing Saturday

Saturday    9/8/18   1:00pm to 6:00pm
Saturday     9/15/18   1:00pm to 6:00pm
Saturday     9/22/18   1:00pm to 6:00pm
Saturday     9/29/18  1:00pm to 6:00pm
*Sat-Sun     9/29-9/30/18   8:00pm to 8:00am

Tree Climbing Sunday

Sunday   9/9/18   1:00pm to 6:00pm
Sunday    9/16/18   1:00pm to 6:00pm
Sunday     9/23/18   1:00pm to 6:00pm
Sunday     9/30/18   1:00pm to 6:00pm
*Sun-Mon    9/30-10/1/18   8:00pm to 8:00am

*Optional overnight in the trees, weather permitting.

*Fee:*

Students: $325
Community: $405
CU Faculty/Staff: $360

Drop Deadline 8/27/18

*Links:*
Medical Form

Whether you are a rain forest canopy researcher, an arborist, or just a kid at heart, everyone loves to climb trees.  Recall the excitement and sense of adventure when you first crawled into the branches to look inside a bird's nest.  Then you swung from limb to limb without a thought of ropes and harnesses.  But what about that big tree down the street you always wanted to climb, but couldn't reach the first branch?  This course will teach you how to use ropes and technical climbing gear to reach the top of any tree, to move around, and even to climb from tree to tree without returning to the ground.  All equipment is included in the course fee.  Attendance Policy - You can miss one day and attend the overnight, or attend all the day sessions and miss the overnight, and still get PE credit.
Tree Climbing (PE 1657) | Cornell Outdoor Education

Cornell University.....

...can you believe it.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 22, 2018)

Confounding said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Confounding said:
> ...





After the beating you've taken in this thread, on would hope a recalculation of your views....

...but we both know that for a Liberal, that is hardly possible.


Scurry off now.....


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 22, 2018)

Confounding said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > It isn't as if you have to be a rocket scientist to understand climate science
> ...


I see your still spouting your crap from a position of ignorance..

Liberals never learn...

Are you going to tell us all what the base premise of AGW is and what evidence you can produce to show us why you believe it?

Your logical fallacies and appeals to authority mean absolutely squat here!


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jul 22, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > Confounding said:
> ...



Left wingers....not liberals.

Left wingers give the label a bad name.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 22, 2018)

Confounding said:


> You are not a climate scientist. Regardless of what you think, you do not understand the topic as well as you think you do. You are not qualified.




Says the idiot who has shown he doesn't even have the IQ of a brick.. You have demonstrated your intelligence and information level about AGW is a bumper sticker, which you can not defend.

As I stated yesterday, you are an ignorant fool who wishes to remain ignorant...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 22, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


He has no intention of backing up his lies..  He is an Alynisky accolade. His behavior proves this out.  Each of his attempts to engage are directed at disparagement, isolation, and degradation.  All of them attempts to discredit without proof or factual base.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 22, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



I posted evidence of 2,000 published papers showing a skeptical view of the AGW conjecture, he replies that I got them from conspiracy websites. Then I showed that ALL of the papers are from science journals and provided hard evidence of it, he replies, quoting him:

"Do you have any links that aren't from known conspiracy websites? Again, the consensus in undeniable if you live in reality. Most skeptics aren't stupid enough to argue that point. For every skeptic paper out there there's 100 others that support AGW claims."

See that? He does NOT acknowledge the evidence I provided that all those papers are from science publications, he then post more Fallacies and a thumper statement which he has NEVER backed up, despite my asking him for the evidence several times. In the end he dropped it with this hilarious answer for his failure:

"I was using hyperbole to make a point, and in your desperation you're focusing on that hyperbole to try to save face. You've been destroyed thoroughly. I'm sorry you're too stupid to know it. If you know so much you should go make yourself rich and famous by proving the scientists wrong."

What a pathetic excuse for failing to back up his claim. He made it with seriousness as if he believed it for a while, then when PRESSED for the evidence, he says it was just …. he he… ha ha… a Hyperbole!

*Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!*

*M*eanwhile the fool never did post any credible published papers in reply in the thread. I post access to 2,000 he posted ZERO.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 22, 2018)

SSDD said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


Now your using facts to discredit his misconceptions...  Bravo!


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jul 22, 2018)

deanrd said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Your statements about Appalachia (and your relatives who live there) are correct.

But, then are you going to address the black population ?

They are, by far, the most uneducated demographic in our country and they vote 90% democratic.  They are a much more sizable group than the people of the mountains.

Want to try that one on ?

As to the GOP and colleges...already been explained.  Again and again.  And yet you continue to use it like it were actually valid.

Only showing yourself to be the liar and laughingstock that you are.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jul 22, 2018)

deanrd said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



And when do we get to hear about your credentials. 

You are so willing to jump behind climate change science an excoriate the GOP for their lack of faith.

Let's hear it.

4 semesters of math ?
3 ?
2 ?
1 ?

A diploma from a crackerjax box ?

What do you know about science ?

C'mon deanrd .....let's hear how smart you are.  What you know and what makes you think for one minute you deserve more than the cat calls you get.

You only confirm what many of us know.  That you, on the left, have big rings through your noses and half educated people can bullshit you into going right over a cliff if need be.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 22, 2018)

deanrd said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Then you have no answer to the poll in post ONE showing that Climate change is not important enough for people to worry over.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 22, 2018)

Kids missed the meeting somehow....that is all about the politics s0ns. Always has been....always will be. The science is a hobby.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 22, 2018)

Confounding makes clear he has no understanding of what credible published papers does for science research, he seems to think they become worthless when they are old as shown by his silly words:

"Oh, by the way, all three studies you linked are kind of old. The last one is actually from almost 40 fucking years ago. Are you serious right now? Do you have any idea how much more we understand now? Anyway, even if you include your studies from 40 years ago the fact remains that there is a large consensus among scientists. If you dispute that you are disputing reality. There are 100 papers that back AGW claims for every one your conspiracy blog website points at."

See how ignorant he really is, might as well throw away Einstein's 1916 paper since it is OLD and out of date!

The ignorant fool doesn't realize that science research are at least partially built on *earlier* published science research, even Einstein's famous paper was partly built on research published by others. 

Heck the Milankovitch hypothesis underwent many challenges over the decades before it was mostly settled in 1976, based on many published papers, pro and con over it from several scientists who debated over the data. I have the book from Dr. Imbrie that talks about it in some detail.

Confounding relies on the following as shown vividly in the thread,

Consensus fallacy
Authority fallacy'
Argumentation fallacies
Make thumper statements he never backs up when challenged
Fails to answer relevant questions
Never made a cogent counterpoint
Profound ignorance on how published papers can advance science research

He doesn't know how to make a cogent argument.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 22, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> Looks like Conservative misinformation is working



Looks like leftists have *no* counterarguments that are working. The proof is clear right here in the thread.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 22, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


And still no cogent reply showing any understanding...


----------



## polarbear (Jul 22, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


_*I see being stupid as a rock is contagious among liberals*_
Moohaha its very likely that you might have hit the nail on the head:
(from a recent CBC documentary..unfortunately the video can`t be played outside Canada, but here is a short portion of the transcript)
*Invasion of the Brain Snatchers*
_And just wait until Professor Joanne Webster of London’s Imperial College reveals “feline fatal attraction”. That’s when toxoplasma gondii, a single-celled parasite, convinces a rat that it’s actually sexually attracted to the smell of cat urine. This makes the rodent easy pickings for its most dangerous predator. And all so the parasite gets to move into the cat, where it can reproduce and complete its lifecycle.
But guess what -- human adults can be infected by toxoplasma too.  *And when the parasite is inside us it doesn’t know it’s not on board a rodent and it tries the same mind manipulating tricks*.  Jaroslav Flegr of Prague’s Charles University has *linked toxoplasma infections in humans with increased traffic accident rates and even personality changes*. Kevin Lafferty also studies toxoplasma, and he thinks *explains some of the differences between different human cultures.*
Other studies have found schizophrenia, depression, anxiety, and other mental diseases are more common in people with toxoplasmosis,
_
Observing how the liberals have been reacting after the election...H.Clinton-schizo& depression + CO2 anxiety, matching all the symptoms of brains being infected by the toxoplasmosis parasite it`s a certainty that people infected by it would wind up being libtards.


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 22, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


Another failure of the conservative ‘intellect’.


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 22, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...


And yet another failure of the conservative ‘intellect’.

They’re coming in pairs!


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 22, 2018)

SSDD said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


What are you looking at? I see longer, more severe droughts in the West and SouthWest. I see larger, more intense hurricanes in Texas, Louisiana, and Florida. I see storms like Superstorm Sandy do things to the NorthEast never seen before. Not to mention the typhoons in the Far East and the soaring temperatures across the U.S. and the world.


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 22, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> "When have we ever had such a nut job for president?"
> 
> Two years ago.


President Obama was the greatest president in the past 50 years, since LBJ.

That is indisputable.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 22, 2018)

Now the leftards are posting up SPAM...  A little more than usual...  They must be TRIGGERED...


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 22, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Now the leftards are posting up SPAM...  A little more than usual...  They must be TRIGGERED...



Yeah he doesn't understand what evidence is since he didn't post any when he blabbered this:

"What are you looking at? I see longer, more severe droughts in the West and SouthWest. I see larger, more intense hurricanes in Texas, Louisiana, and Florida. I see storms like Superstorm Sandy do things to the NorthEast never seen before. Not to mention the typhoons in the Far East and the soaring temperatures across the U.S. and the world."

The blabber doesn't seem to realize that Sandy wasn't even a hurricane when it made landfall SIX years ago. It was classified as Post-tropical storm.

The ignoramus moron fails to notice that there was a 11+ years landfalling of major hurricane drought that was finally broken last year, America didn't get a single major hurricane from 2006 to 2017 on it.

U.S. Major Hurricane Drought Ends at Record 4,323 Days

Heatwaves happened EVERY year, but the worst decade for heatwaves in America was back in the 1930's.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 22, 2018)

Synthaholic said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



But s0n....the whole point of the thread is, everybody is seeing what you are seeing. They're just not caring. I'm not getting why this is some kind of quantum concept to fathom? People like you tend to the hysterical on the  weather/climate....most dont. What can you do?

The climate crusaders have been throwing bombs about us having to take action for 20 years 

When we see beach chairs in the Arctic laden with bikini babes s0n, maybe then you'll have something!


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jul 22, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Now the leftards are posting up SPAM...  A little more than usual...  They must be TRIGGERED...
> ...



I'm melting.....

I'm melting.....


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 22, 2018)

Synthaholic said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > "When have we ever had such a nut job for president?"
> ...



Nobody cares about Obama....its 2018 s0n. Like me saying Peggy Flemming is the greatest female ice skater ever. Both are veritable fossils in the bigger picture.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jul 22, 2018)

PoliticalChic plants another haymaker on the jaw of the hysterical left.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jul 22, 2018)

Synthaholic said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > "When have we ever had such a nut job for president?"
> ...



According to who....Michelle Obama ?


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 22, 2018)

What you see in this thread is typical.... the progressives pivoting back to the science debate. As if it matters!

Changing the subject as a debate strategy is always gay and carried out by progressives all the time..... but in this case it is particularly laughable because it is immaterial to the topic.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 22, 2018)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> PoliticalChic plants another haymaker on the jaw of the hysterical left.




Indeed....this is like a MOAB being dropped on top of the local Starbucks.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 23, 2018)

Synthaholic said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > "When have we ever had such a nut job for president?"
> ...



What exactly did LBJ do except get us inescapably mired in the Viet Nam war?  Sure, the Civil Rights act passed, but it was republicans that carried that through, democrats were fighting it tooth and nail.  His "war on poverty" resulted in a welfare system that created generational poverty and dependence on government....

He made unrealistic promises and his enduring legacy will be Viet Nam.  Some great president.  Obama was even worse...I never thought there could be a president worse than Jimmy Carter but obama proved me wrong.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 23, 2018)

Synthaholic said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > "When have we ever had such a nut job for president?"
> ...



"President Obama was the greatest president in the past 50 years, since LBJ
That is indisputable."



Actually, he mirrors your reputation: the greatest laughing stock.

That's indisputable.....

Let's prove it together:


*1. China underscores disrespect for Obama during his visit: *

"...Obama downplayed dust-ups involving the U.S. delegation and Chinese security officials during the opening hours of his trip to Hangzhou for the G-20 summit, ....

The early hours of Obama’s trip were marred by confrontations involving Chinese security officials,.... When Air Force One touched down at the Hangzhou airport, *Obama was not greeted, as is customary, by a staircase, but had to deplane from the lower level of his 747 jet. *

Reporters and U.S. officials were kept away from the welcoming ceremony by a rope line.... When the president’s national security adviser, Susan Rice, and her deputy, Ben Rhodes, attempted to pass under the barricade, *they were confronted by a Chinese security official "They did things that weren’t anticipated,"* Rice later told reporters..."
Obama Downplays Tensions After Skirmishes During China Visit


2. "Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte called Barack Obama a "son of a whore" on Monday as he vowed not to be lectured by the US leader on human rights when they meet in Laos.

The acid-tongued Duterte bristled at warnings he would face questioning by the US president over a war against drugs in the Philippines that has claimed more than 2,400 lives in just over two months.

"You must be respectful. Do not just throw away questions and statements. Son of a whore, I will curse you in that forum," Duterte told a news conference shortly before flying to Laos to attend a summit."
Philippines' Duterte calls Obama 'son of a whore'

3. "Iran’s most recent ballistic missile test, which violates current U.N. Security Council resolutions, comes a day after the international community’s nuclear watchdog organization disclosed that it is prohibited by the nuclear agreement from publicly reporting on potential violations by Iran.

Iranian leaders now say that they are poised to walk away from the deal if the United States and other global powers fail to advance the Islamic Republic’s “national interests.”
Iran Threatens to Walk Away From Nuke Deal After New Missile Test


Iran laughs at Obama....


*4. No Respect...he, and you, the world's laughing stock*: Obama removes restrictions on Cuba, gets nothing in return. And....he visits, but *Raul Castro couldn't be bothered to be at the airport: *

" As the plane landed at a rainy Jose Marti International Airport, Mr Obama tweeted: "What's up Cuba? Just touched down here, looking forward to meeting and hearing directly from the Cuban people." *The president was greeted by foreign minister Bruno Rodriguez - not president Raul Castro.* Instead he will hold talks with his Cuban counterpart on Monday." Obama Arrives In Cuba For Historic Visit

*"Both Donald Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz slammed the greeting President Obama and his wife received during their historic touch-down at a Cuban airport, saying the failure of Raul Castro to personally greet them as they exited Air Force One was a slap in the face to America."
www.wnd.com/2016/03/obama-snubbed-castro-fails-to-welcome-air-force-one/#P4htmI3yufsIQ4zM.99

5. * "ANKARA, Turkey (AP) —Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has said he no longer holds "direct" telephone conversations with U.S. President Barak Obama,suggesting a rift between the leaders who were once close."Turkish PM says he Obama no longer talk directly - Yahoo News



6. "Turkey will refuse to allow a US-led coalition to attack jihadistsin neighbouring Iraq and Syria from its air bases, nor will it take part in combat operations against militants, a government official told AFP" Thursdayhttp://Breaking TURKEY REFUSES OBAMA REQUEST to Use Its Airbases to Fight ISIS The Gateway Pundit



7. “Obama is the weakest of U.S. presidents, he had humiliating defeats in the region. Under him the Islamic awakening happened,” Younesisaidin a Farsi language interview with Iran’s semi-official Fars News Agency. “Americans witnessed their greatest defeats in Obama’s era: Terrorism expanded, [the] U.S. had huge defeats under Obama [and] that is why they want to compromise with Iran,” Younesi said.

The criticism of Obama echoes comments made recently byotherworld leaders and even former members of the president’s own staff,such asFormer Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Top Iranian Official: Obama is ‘The Weakest of U.S. Presidents’



8.  "GUMMING UP THE WORKS: Obama blasted for chewing gum during visit with Indian prime minister
Obama, who has been caught before munching on gum during high-profile political events, was taken to task by the country’s largest newspaper after he was spotted taking a piece out of his mouth during the annual Republic Day parade."
Obama blasted for chewing gum during visit with Indian PM


9.  "It would be one thing had the president brought in a successful test anywhere. But his — and Secretary of State Clinton’s — “reset” with Russia has been greeted with aggression from President Putin and his camarilla. The “pivot” to Asia has turned into a palsied pirouette and been unmasked as cover for fading from the Middle East. The redlines in Syria have been erased. Libya, Yemen, Venezuela are wrecks. Afghanistan is teetering to the Taliban, while Mr. Obama’s withdrawal has left Iraq at the mercy of Iran and the Islamic State."The Obama Doctrine


10. “Saudi Arabia and its Persian Gulf neighbors have been optimistic about Mr. Trump’s presidency, largely because of their deep frustration at what they called Mr. Obama’s refusal to forcefully engage in Middle Eastern issues like the war in Syria. They are encouraged by Mr. Trump’s business background, his lack of interest in human rights and, most importantly, his vow to take a hard line against Iran.

They were happy to see Obama go,” Bruce Riedel, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, said of the Saudis. Mr. Riedel said the kingdom had lost confidence in Mr. Obama "

Trump Meets Saudi Prince as U.S. and Kingdom Seek Warmer Relations





*11. "* Obama's administration has been working behind the scenes for months to forge a new working relationship with Russia, despite the fact that Russian President Vladimir Putin has shown little interest in repairing relations with Washington or halting his aggression in neighboring Ukraine."    Inside Obama’s Secret Outreach to Russia


12. "Of course, the contempt that world leaders are expressing toward Barack Obama is partly the result of his lame duck status. But it is more than that: he is a widely detested lame duck, viewed by most as both arrogant and unreliable.

Remember the days when Obama promised us a smart foreign policy? Instead, he has thrown away our hard-fought victory in Iraq, strengthened Iran’s mullahs in a quixotic effort to form an alliance with them, and alienated our staunchest allies, like Great Britain and Israel, while abandoning others, like the Sunni Gulf States, all while accomplishing nothing. Small wonder that as he prepares to leave office, the predominant reaction around the world is, good riddance."                        Disrespecting Obama

*13. How about the way the Brits spit in Obama’s eye in the Brexit vote:*
“Backlash after Barack Obama EU referendum intervention”   Backlash after Obama EU intervention

And….

14. The Israelis after Obama sent his minions to sink Netanyahu:

*“Obama's shocking interference into Israel's election process*              The Obama presidential election team has set up camp in Tel Aviv with the mission to defeat Netanyahu in our upcoming election.”    Obama's shocking interference into Israel's election process - Blogs - Jerusalem Post

*Guess who they voted for.*


*15.   “Give Trump credit for USA getting the World Cup*

*·        …Former U.S. Soccer president Sunil Gulati. He said before President Obama was elected in 2008 that a Democratic president would give a U.S. World Cup bid the greatest chance of success.*

*·        Obama came out strongly for the U.S. World Cup campaign for 2018 and 2022 as well, getting chummy with Sepp Blatter, writing letters to and meeting with the soccer politician – …. Russia got 2018 when it was decided that event would go to a European candidate and Qatar came from nowhere to steal away 2022, leaving Obama to receive a consolation phone call *

*·    As this all relates to sports, scorecards are appropriate. And as much as Obama had charisma that stretched far beyond American borders, that never translated into votes for big athletic extravaganzas. On that front it’s Trump 2, Obama 0.*

·        Obama went to bat hard for his hometown of Chicago as it tried to stage the 2016 Olympics. He held an event on the White House lawn and flew to Copenhagen in an attempt to sway the vote, but the Windy City came last out of four candidates as the voters opted for Rio de Janeiro instead.”                                Give Trump credit for USA getting the World Cup

*

*

Don't bother wiping the egg off your face.....

....it's an improvement.


----------



## polarbear (Jul 23, 2018)

skookerasbil said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Like I said, their reactions are exactly the same as those whose brains are infected by that toxoplasmosis parasite.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 23, 2018)

Not one coherant response from a single climate crusader. And really, if you're on their side, your nutsack has basically been ripped off. Fucking A


----------



## Confounding (Jul 23, 2018)




----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 24, 2018)

Confounding said:


>



That sure nails it!!! these bozos STILL think it's just a science debate! Fucking fascinating to me!!


----------



## SSDD (Jul 24, 2018)

Confounding said:


>



So true...as evidenced by post after post after post after post of shit from you without the first piece of actual evidence to support your claims.  You are a prime example of a pigeon...Nothing to support you but hyperbole and logical fallacy and yet, you pretend that you have not been made a fool of.  Good poster...now print it out and hang it up somewhere to remind you that it is best to be able to provide some actual evidence to support your position rather than spewing bullshit and strutting around like you won.

Remember, the person on the other side of the board realizes that it is a pigeon in front of him.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 24, 2018)

Confounding said:


>


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 25, 2018)

Confounding said:


>






Speaking of idiots, you idiot.....check this out:

*"Liberal Chris Hayes: I’d Like to Cover Climate Change, But It’s a 'Ratings Killer'*
...Hayes admitted reality on Tuesday and tweeted that haranguing people about global warming is a “ratings killer.” This is the same man who once starred in an ad where he biked to work in order to save the planet. Now, he can’t be bothered."
Liberal Chris Hayes: I’d Like to Cover Climate Change, But It’s a 'Ratings Killer'



Hey, dunce....looks like you're the only one still beating that drum.


I love kicking dopes when they're down.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 25, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



Zucker at CNN said the same thing 5 years ago. Gilligan's Island re-runs draw more interest than stories on climate change!


----------



## polarbear (Jul 26, 2018)

Confounding said:


>


The only idiots who play chess with a pidgeon do it because it`s their only hope to win a chess game.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 27, 2018)

Guess confounding finally got the message that he was being made a fool of and slinked  off to wait for an opportunity to peddle the same old bullshit to someone else who may not be as well informed and susceptible to his lies.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 5, 2018)

Confounding said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > It isn't as if you have to be a rocket scientist to understand climate science
> ...





Gads, you're a dunce.

The surest sign of ignorance is the use of ‘ 98% of scientists agree….

It is even more proof of duncism than having an “Obama/Biden” bumper sticker.




“… where did that *famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming”* come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3,000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”

The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

Then of those, only a small subset, *just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.                              *
That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not!


77 out of 10,257 becomes 98%.

Yup…figures don’t lie, but liars can figure.




Oh….BTW….

“Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.”   Ibid.


----------



## Confounding (Aug 5, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Scientific institutions all over the world are in agreement that man made climate change is real. Most first world countries are now taking measures to mitigate it. The most asinine thing you anti-science people do is try to talk back the consensus. If you want to keep insisting there isn't a powerful scientific consensus that's fine, but you're not dealing in reality. I know that doesn't normally bother you too much.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 5, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Legates Et Al 2013 exposed this pile of crap called the 97% consensuses.. Its amazing how they threw out over 10,647 papers that didn't fit their narrative keeping just 77 of them..  I guess the majority didn't matter to them..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 5, 2018)

Confounding said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Confounding said:
> ...


There you go again using their POLITICAL statements as proof..  You really are a dupe...


----------



## Confounding (Aug 5, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> There you go again using their POLITICAL statements as proof..  You really are a dupe...



At least be honest enough to admit that your opinion is at odds with what most scientists are saying. How can you hope to have a real discussion when you won't even talk inside reality? Is it embarrassing to acknowledge that? If it is I understand; it _should_ be embarrassing.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 5, 2018)

Confounding said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > There you go again using their POLITICAL statements as proof..  You really are a dupe...
> ...


At odds?



You really are detached from reality.  Most every scientists I know, including those who were recently convinced by observation and science, now openly question the AGW hypothesis.  You no longer have any kind of consensus.  The organizations which spout that their political views are their members are devoid of fact and refuse to place it to a vote of those they claim to represent.  The AGU did exactly that and lost. It was massively embarrassing for them.

Good luck in your fantasy world.


----------



## Confounding (Aug 5, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Yes, yes...

Here, have some breadcrumbs.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 5, 2018)

Confounding said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Confounding said:
> ...



No, they're not, you moron.



"While real polling of climate scientists and organization memberships is rare, there are a few examples. A 2008 international survey of climate scientists conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch revealed deep disagreement regarding two-thirds of the 54 questions asked about their professional views. Responses to about half of those areas were skewed on the “skeptic” side, with no consensus to support any alarm. The majority did not believe that atmospheric models can deal with important influences of clouds, precipitation, atmospheric convection, ocean convection, or turbulence. Most also did not believe that climate models can predict precipitation, sea level rise, extreme weather events, or temperature values for the next 50 years.

A 2010 survey of media broadcast meteorologists conducted by the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication found that 63% of 571 who responded believe global warming is mostly caused by natural, not human, causes. Those polled included members of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the National Weather Association.

...canvas of 51,000 Canadian scientists with the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysics of Alberta (APEGGA) found that although 99% of 1,077 replies believe climate is changing, 68% disagreed with the statement that “…the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled.” Only 26% of them attributed global warming to “human activity like burning fossil fuels.” Regarding these results, APEGGA’s executive director, Neil Windsor, commented, “We’re not surprised at all. There is no clear consensus of scientists that we know of.”

...a major scientific institution in the European Union, agrees that the purported climate consensus argument is becoming increasingly untenable. It says, in part, that: “Over the past 400 thousand years - even without human intervention - the level of CO2 in the air, based on the Antarctic ice cores, has already been similar four times, and even higher than the current value. At the end of the last ice age, within a time [interval] of a few hundred years, the average annual temperature changed over the globe several times. In total, it has gone up by almost 10 °C in the northern hemisphere, [and] therefore the changes mentiohttps://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/#8d543fc3bb32ned above were incomparably more dramatic than the changes reported today.”




Oh….BTW….

“Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.” Ibid.


----------



## skookerasbil (Aug 5, 2018)

Confounding said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > There you go again using their POLITICAL statements as proof..  You really are a dupe...
> ...



Dang s0n....you really aren't getting it!! If 99% of the scientists concurred, if the people aren't caring, it's nothing more than internet banter. I mean, c'mon now....they've been saying it for 20 years. It's not mattering....perhaps it should.....none if us know for sure, but it's the only thing material to the discussion. China continues to build 2 new coal plants every month. Any discussion about the science of climate change is laughable....no different than two kids debating about who was a better baseball player, Mays or Mantle?

Do you know why climate change activists bring lawsuits against the oil companies? Do you really think it is about the environment? Anybody who thinks it is about climate change just can't connect the dots to how it plays out in the real world. Do you understand who foots the bill when these frivolous lawsuits are struck down by the court? It's the taxpayers.....duh..... they foot the bill for the defendants. Skyrocketing into the billions for city budgets.... AND THAT IS EXACTLY THE GOAL!!! Who wins when trickle up poverty economics become the plan for these cities? Well of course, the progressive politicians win because they gained many more voters. Duh.....

The Climate Change Industry goals have nothing to do with the environment.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 5, 2018)

*"95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong*
95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong «  Roy Spencer, PhD

… the recent (15+ year) pause in global average warming…when did it start, is it a full pause, shouldn’t we be taking the longer view, etc.

These are all interesting exercises, but they miss the most important point: _the climate models that governments base policy decisions on have failed miserably._

I’ve updated our comparison of 90 climate models versus observations for global average surface temperatures through 2013, and we still see that >95% of the models have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH)"




95% of predictions wrong????

Well….gee, let’s make it public policy then.


----------



## Confounding (Aug 5, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



A Forbes fact checker (since you like to use Forbes) seems to think it's a bit exaggerated. I guess the amount of scientists that are convinced the change is human caused is only in the high 80 to low 90 range, according to them.

Oh, wait, that's only when you don't limit it to climate scientists. You know, the ones who directly study this stuff.



> Given these results, it is clear that support among scientists for human-caused climate change is below 97%. Most studies including *specialties other than climatologists* find *support in the range of 80% to 90%*. The 97% consensus of scientists, *when used without limitation to climate scientists*, is false.



Fact Checking The Claim Of 97% Consensus On Anthropogenic Climate Change

Oh, and then there's these guys. Buncha idiots I know, but I tend to respect what they have to say.

Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet


Even if only 50% agreed you'd be a fool for shrugging off what they have to say.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 5, 2018)

Confounding said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Confounding said:
> ...






" It is impossible to tell from this analysis how many actually believed it."
Fact Checking The Claim Of 97% Consensus On Anthropogenic Climate Change


----------



## Confounding (Aug 5, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



There is a scientific consensus. *Worst case scenario* it's in the high 80 low 90s range. If you're not going to operate inside reality there is no further discussion to be had. I'm not going to entertain your lunacy.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 5, 2018)

Confounding said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Confounding said:
> ...





" It is impossible to tell from this analysis how many actually believed it."
Fact Checking The Claim Of 97% Consensus On Anthropogenic Climate Change[/QUOTE]




*"New Gallup Poll: Americans do not even mention global warming as a problem – 36 ‘problems’ cited, but not climate*

According to the latest Gallup poll, NOBODY thinks global warming is our most important problem, contrary to what NRCM, Audubon and CLF sock puppets tell us."
New Gallup Poll: Americans do not even mention global warming as a problem – 36 ‘problems’ cited, but not climate



It's only you and a handful of other indoctrinees.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 5, 2018)

Confounding said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Confounding said:
> ...


Until a real scientifically based question pool is done and the core premises questioned all you have is feel good conjecture..  Even the current work involving CO2 la


Confounding said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Confounding said:
> ...




Where did you pull that from?  Your ass?


----------



## Sunsettommy (Aug 5, 2018)

Confounding said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Confounding said:
> ...



You again and again follow the Consensus fallacy, which does NOTHING for science research. It is a political tool to gauge support for something lawmakers seek.

All those "scientific" institutions BOARD of DIRECTORS made those statements, NOT the full members of the listed organizations, who didn't get to vote on it at all, some resigned in protest and others say this is wrong.

People like you ignore that too which is indicative that you have no idea why the concept of The Scientific Method and the REPRODUCIBILITY of published research flies over your head. 

There have been many consensus failures in science that harmed research and caused deaths to people who suffered under consensus bullcrap. Recall that for many years it was a consensus that Ulcers were caused by stress or spicy foods, until someone decided to do actual research to find out what the underlying cause was. It was BACTERIA that caused them.

Get out of the consensus stupidity, maybe you finally realize that science advances one reproducible paper at a time. Consensus pablums doesn't do shit for learning.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 5, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...





"All those "scientific" institutions BOARD of DIRECTORS made those statements, NOT the full members of the listed organizations, who didn't get to vote on it at all,..."

BINGO!


*O'Sullivan's First Law* (a.k.a. O'Sullivan's Law), paraphrased by George Will as stating that any institution that is not libertarian and classically liberal will, over time, become collectivist and statist.  O'Sullivan's First Law: All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing. I cite as supporting evidence the ACLU, the Ford Foundation, and the Episcopal Church. The reason is, of course, that people who staff such bodies tend to be the sort who don't like private profit, business, making money, the current organization of society, and, by extension, the Western world. At which point Michels's Iron Law of Oligarchy takes over — and the rest follows. http://old.nationalreview.com/flashback/flashback-jos062603.asp


This law, of course, reflects the leadership, not the members.


----------



## SSDD (Aug 7, 2018)

The fact is that if you pick any given scientific "consensus" and go against it, given time, the odds are heavily in your favor that in time, your position will prove to be right while the consensus joins the dust pile of history.

Consensus is a political state, not a scientific state and sadly suggests that curiosity is dead.

The fact remains that for all the talk of consensus on this thread, my request for a single piece of observed, measured data which supports the man made climate change hypothesis over natural variability remains unanswered..and has been unanswered for more than 2 decades now.

If there is no actual evidence in support of the AGW hypothesis, what might prompt scientific consensus other than a very large pool of money?  Ay answers to that one out there among the believers?


----------



## Sunsettommy (Aug 15, 2018)

Confounding said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Confounding said:
> ...



Wow you don't even realize that SSDD referred to published data that came from SCIENTISTS research in his post 74, my you are THAT ignorant!


----------



## Sunsettommy (Aug 15, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



We had Hurricanes when there was global cooling for a few decades, Camille came along in 1969 with estimated 200 MPH winds.

U.S. Mainland Hurricane Strikes By Decade: 1851-2016

The list shows that warming or cooling trends did little to Hurricane landfalling frequency.


----------



## skookerasbil (Aug 15, 2018)

Sunsettommy said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



And every climate k00k in here jumped on the bandwagon after Katrina screaming gloom and doom with the Cat 5 hurricanes! And....what....we didnt see a hurricane come anywhere near the US for 12 years. Fucking suckers


----------



## polarbear (Aug 16, 2018)

Confounding said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Confounding said:
> ...


_Yes, yes...Here, have some breadcrumbs._
And with those breadcrumbs we caught the crow for you to eat...enjoy !


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 18, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Confounding said:
> ...


Silly ass, all your lies will not change the fact that the people in this world with scientific training totally think you are full of shit. Since you cannot see anything is any other light other than political, you think everyone else is like that. Most are not. And many, especially scientists, are grounded in reality, a reality that you totally deny. And that reality cares not a bit about your denial, it just continues to be real.

So, by all means, continue to post your cut and paste flap yap, and expose for the whole world to see, the depths of your delusion. The officers of the various Scientific Societies are voted on by the members. If the members do not like the direction of the policy statements of the organization, they can vote in new people that will change that direction. And you claim that all the officers of the Scientific Societies are in on a grand conspiracy, a world wide one, because these are the Scientific Societies of the whole world with it's various nations and cultures, then you little tin hat is on far too tight.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 18, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...







"...all your lies will not change the fact that the people in this world with scientific training...."




Let's check:

1. “…* where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? *It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” 

The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

Then of those, *only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”. *That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not!





77 out of 10,257 becomes 98%. 

Yup…figures don’t lie, but liars can figure.





2.  Oh….BTW….

“Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.” Ibid.




You remain another one of the mindless drones that leftist 'education' system cranks out like cogs and sprockets. Unique, just like every other reliable Democrat voter.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 18, 2018)

SSDD said:


> The fact is that if you pick any given scientific "consensus" and go against it, given time, the odds are heavily in your favor that in time, your position will prove to be right while the consensus joins the dust pile of history.
> 
> Consensus is a political state, not a scientific state and sadly suggests that curiosity is dead.
> 
> ...


Like Political Chit, you are a liar. And you know it. The absorption spectra of the GHGs, water vapor, CO2, CH4, NOx, ect. are the physical evidence that we are changing the climate. We have increased the amount of these gases in the atmosphere, we have the records of the emissions, and there source. As with evolution, you people are going to deny the science no matter what the evidence or consequences. In the meantime, the sane portion of the world moves on.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 18, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


And Political Chit continues to be an idiot and a liar. And afraid to reference that '31,000' scientists source. OISM is a fruitcake organization in the metropolis of Cave Junction, Oregon. They support many rightwingnut causes, and are considered to be the fringe of the fringe. A rebuttal to their nonsense;

How the OISM Petition Project casts doubt on the scientific consensus on climate change

There are several claims that large numbers of scientists do not agree with the theory of climate change, the best known of which is a petition organised by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (the OISM petition). This petition now appears to be signed by over 32,000 people with a BSc or higher qualification. The signatories agree with these statements:


The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.
No evidence has ever been offered to support the first statement, and the second statement is in flat contradiction with the scientists who study climate change. There are also valid issues regarding the methodology:


The organisers have never revealed how many people they canvassed (so the response rate is unknown) nor have they revealed the sampling methodology, an ironic omission considering how much fuss is made about scientists being candid and making public their methods and data.
The petition is, in terms of climate change science, rather out of date.
*In the professional field of climate science, the consensus is unequivocal: human activities are causing climate change and additional anthropogenic CO2 may cause great disruption to the climate.*

*32,000 Sounds Like A Lot*
In fact, OISM signatories represent a tiny fraction (~0.3%) of all US science graduates (petition cards were only sent to individuals within the U.S)

According to figures from the US Department of Education Digest of Education Statistics: 2008, 10.6 million science graduates have gained qualifications consistent with the OISM polling criteria since the 1970-71 school year. 32,000 out of 10 million is not a very compelling figure, but a tiny minority - approximately 0.3 per cent.

There are many issues casting doubt on the validity of this petition. On investigation, attempts to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change often appear to have ideological roots, vested business interests or political sponsors. The claims made for the OISM petition do not withstand objective scrutiny, and the assertions made in the petition are not supported by evidence, data or scientific research.

*Several studies conducted independently (Oreskes 2004, Oreskes 2007, Doran and Zimmerman (2009), Anderegg et al. (2010), Cook et. al., 2013) have shown that 97% of climate scientists agree that humans are causing the climate to change, and that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are causing global changes to the climate. These views form the scientific consensus on climate change.*


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 18, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...





No one still believes it....at least no one with over a double digit IQ....

*"New Gallup Poll: Americans do not even mention global warming as a problem – 36 ‘problems’ cited, but not climate*

According to the latest Gallup poll, NOBODY thinks global warming is our most important problem, contrary to what NRCM, Audubon and CLF sock puppets tell us."
New Gallup Poll: Americans do not even mention global warming as a problem – 36 ‘problems’ cited, but not climate




The only thing you're missing is a unicycle, you clown.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 18, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> all your lies will not change the fact that the people in this world with scientific training totally think you are full of shit.


What a load of BULL SHIT!

Some of us *who do actually have scientific training* see your lies for what they are.. Appealing to those you put on a pedestal and worship is not science...


----------



## skookerasbil (Aug 19, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > all your lies will not change the fact that the people in this world with scientific training totally think you are full of shit.
> ...



It's either an issue of zero curiosity or as I suspect, a hate America guy pushing the radical left agenda. Most people who latch on love goverrnment as an entity to settle the score with the highly successful among us.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Oct 31, 2018)

*"Weather, Climate, and Climate Doomsday: Why Do Climate Alarmist Predictions Fail?*


Climate alarmists—the ones who believe we are approaching climate doomsday—are confident that the future climate is solely decided on the basis of changes in atmospheric CO2 levels.

However, this is not true with our environment. Their belief in such a hypothesis was put to the test over the past two decades when the temperature forecasts from their computer climate models were compared against the actual real-time temperature measurements for the same period.

The analysis revealed that the computer climate models failed dramatically because of their assumptions that CO2 was the major driver of increase in temperature levels.

The CO2 levels in the atmosphere increased at a very high rate between 1999-2017, but the temperature levels did not rise correspondingly, and the rate of increase fell behind the rate of increase that the temperatures displayed during the decades prior to 1999.

This should have been a major wake up call for the climate alarmists. But they remain stubborn and continue to warn us of an imminent climate doomsday.

Their warning is based on their erroneous theory of a steep temperature increase induced by human CO2 emissions, which has been proven wrong again and again at the highest academic levels and testified to atthe U.S. House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology by climate scientists."
Weather, Climate, and Climate Doomsday: Why Do Climate Alarmist Predictions Fail?


----------



## skookerasbil (Oct 31, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> *"Weather, Climate, and Climate Doomsday: Why Do Climate Alarmist Predictions Fail?*
> 
> 
> Climate alarmists—the ones who believe we are approaching climate doomsday—are confident that the future climate is solely decided on the basis of changes in atmospheric CO2 levels.
> ...



They must perpetuate a myth....duh. Anybody who cant see this is an epiC sucker!


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 1, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> *"Weather, Climate, and Climate Doomsday: Why Do Climate Alarmist Predictions Fail?*
> 
> 
> Climate alarmists—the ones who believe we are approaching climate doomsday—are confident that the future climate is solely decided on the basis of changes in atmospheric CO2 levels.
> ...


You are such a pathetic liar. The predictions made by the scientists were accurate, although a bit optimistic. The warming has been greater than the predictions, and the effects more severe.


----------



## eagle1462010 (Nov 1, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> Looks like Conservative misinformation is working


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 1, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > *"Weather, Climate, and Climate Doomsday: Why Do Climate Alarmist Predictions Fail?*
> ...





*"UN Warns Climate Change Will Destroy Earth By 2005*
WORLD—The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change came to a grim conclusion regarding the rapid warming of the earth, should people not band together to give more power over to the government in order to turn the tide in the fight against climate change.


The report definitively concluded that climate change will completely destroy the earth by 2005 if we do not take action now.

"We've run all the numbers, and it's absolutely clear: every inch of dry land on the planet will be totally submerged by the year 2005," said one member of the panel. "This is an absolute scientific fact."

When several scientific researchers pointed out that 2005 came and went 13 years ago, they were informed that the earth was actually destroyed, everybody was killed, and we are all actually ghosts.

"Every person on the planet is now a spirit who was killed over a decade ago by climate change," said a UN spokesperson. "And anyone who does not believe this will be labeled a ghost science denier."
UN Warns Climate Change Will Destroy Earth By 2005


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 1, 2018)

Confounding said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Looks like Conservative misinformation is working
> ...


Yup. 
Global Warming had to be changed to Climate Change for legal reasons. 20 years ago they said the ice capes would melt in 10 years......New York City would be under water by now. 
All of those intelligent people turned out to be wrong. 
The primary indicator is the fact that 3rd world countries and China are still dumping tons of poisons into the air and they are exempt from the standards Westerners fall under. The oceans are becoming trash heaps because India and other countries don't recycle their trash. They just throw it in the ocean. America leads the way in pollution control yet its never enough.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 1, 2018)

mudwhistle said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...





So glad you put that Lemon quote there.



Did you see this?

WASHINGTON – Steven Clifford, author and former CEO of the King Broadcasting Company and National Mobile Television, told PJM that the federal government should “prohibit straight white males from voting” in U.S. elections as a way to “save” democracy."
Former TV CEO Says U.S. Should Ban ‘Straight White Males from Voting’


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 1, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Confounding said:
> ...


To be honest, I think you should be able to pass an exam in order to vote. There are so many who vote that don't know squat.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 1, 2018)

mudwhistle said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...





But....if they gave the test in government school, they'd just give 'em the answers, you know....Donna Brazile style.


----------



## westwall (Nov 1, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > *"Weather, Climate, and Climate Doomsday: Why Do Climate Alarmist Predictions Fail?*
> ...







No they weren't you inveterate liar.  ALL climate "predictions" have been wrong.  That's why they don't make them any longer.  Instead they use the language of charlatans and palm readers loaded up with words like "could", "may", "might" and "suggests".
None of those words are predictive, they are hedge your bets kind of words, that's why palm readers, and climatologists, use them.


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 1, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> Looks like Conservative misinformation is working



Time to release the ninja scientists to fix those misconceptions.. Think you could get any GW "hair on fire" advocates to an open public debate?   Nawww.. Never will happen. The Science is Settled --- RIGHT chief?


----------



## Sunsettommy (Nov 1, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > *"Weather, Climate, and Climate Doomsday: Why Do Climate Alarmist Predictions Fail?*
> ...



The IPCC doesn't agree with you, they are the ones starting in 1990 PREDICTED an AVERAGE of .30C/ decade warming trend. The reality is less than .20C/decade which you ignore because you have baloney to protect.


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 1, 2018)

eagle1462010 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Looks like Conservative misinformation is working


I have a big brain, very big, big, big brain
I’m smart, very smart, probably the smartest poster ever on USMB

Believe me


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 1, 2018)

Old Rocks said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > *"Weather, Climate, and Climate Doomsday: Why Do Climate Alarmist Predictions Fail?*
> ...



*The predictions made by the scientists were accurate, *

Of course, that's why they keep cheating, suppressing and adjusting the old data.


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 1, 2018)

rightwinger said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



We're all real happy for ya s0n.....but dang, how many posts did it take you? Isnt your post count up to some st00pid number now like 450,000?


----------



## mamooth (Nov 7, 2018)

Thread summary:

The deniers are all just screaming hysterically, no longer even pretending that the science backs up their dogshit pseudoscience. The OP was actually dumb enough to pretend that public opinion affects the science facts. Other deniers are just doing that "lie outright about the data" thing they've been trained do so well.

Why do they do that? Because all the real science flatly contradicts their dogshit pseudoscience. As admitting that is not ever an option for a denier (the cult forbids such moral behavior), and being how they're so helpless at debating the science, the only available option they see is deflection-by-way-of-shrieking-hysteria.

It's so good to be on the rational side. To "win", we simply point to reality. Case closed. No conspiracy theories necessary, so we never look like drooling cult imbeciles. No lies necessary, so we never get all twisted up trying to remember what lies we told in the past. No evasions necessary, so we never look like cowardly weasels. And we look like freakin' geniuses in comparison, because the people we're talking to look like such freakin' morons.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Nov 7, 2018)

mamooth said:


> Thread summary:
> 
> The deniers are all just screaming hysterically, no longer even pretending that the science backs up their dogshit pseudoscience. The OP was actually dumb enough to pretend that public opinion affects the science facts. Other deniers are just doing that "lie outright about the data" thing they've been trained do so well.
> 
> ...




Post summary: "I don't care that no one but me still believes the fake global warming lie."


You can go now.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Nov 7, 2018)

PoliticalChic said:


> Remember this, from the first Republican President?
> 
> *You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.*
> 
> ...



The first Republican President.....now keep in mind I think he made a decision that saved humanity, man was it pretty liberal though.  Nowhere in the Constitution did it say states can't leave the union.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 5, 2019)

PoliticalChic said:


> Remember this, from the first Republican President?
> 
> *You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.*
> 
> ...


----------



## Penelope (Feb 5, 2019)

PoliticalChic said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


list of articles on global warming tell us a lot more American are concerned than not concerned.

Search Results


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 5, 2019)

Penelope said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...







*"New Gallup Poll: Americans do not even mention global warming as a problem – 36 ‘problems’ cited, but not climate*

According to the latest Gallup poll, NOBODY thinks global warming is our most important problem, contrary to what NRCM, Audubon and CLF sock puppets tell us."
New Gallup Poll: Americans do not even mention global warming as a problem – 36 ‘problems’ cited, but not climate


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Feb 5, 2019)

Penelope said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



And yet, Americans don't want to spend any money fixing the "problem".


----------



## skookerasbil (Feb 5, 2019)

PoliticalChic said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Yep....been saying it for 10 years in here. Nobody cares about climate change. Americans have waaaaaaaaaaay more pressing worries. Doy.....fascinating that the climate k00ks think otherwise!


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 12, 2019)

"A few years ago, an article in the journal "Nature Climate Change” assessed 117 climate predictions from the 1990s and found that only three had been accurate. The other 114 studies all overestimated the amount of warming, with predictions averaging twice the actual increase.

The Green New Deal relies on the highest estimated temperature predictions and most extreme estimated dollar costs from global warming, but doesn’t even cite them correctly. The proposed changes will cost many times more than any possible economic gains.


Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), who sponsored the Green New Deal, claims, "The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change.” But Cortez’s cost estimates are for 80 years from now, belying her own apocalyptic hyperbole."
Analyzing the Green New Deal


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 12, 2019)

Old Rocks said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > *"Weather, Climate, and Climate Doomsday: Why Do Climate Alarmist Predictions Fail?*
> ...


You still tout that lying POS?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 12, 2019)

PoliticalChic said:


> "A few years ago, an article in the journal "Nature Climate Change” assessed 117 climate predictions from the 1990s and found that only three had been accurate. The other 114 studies all overestimated the amount of warming, with predictions averaging twice the actual increase.
> 
> The Green New Deal relies on the highest estimated temperature predictions and most extreme estimated dollar costs from global warming, but doesn’t even cite them correctly. The proposed changes will cost many times more than any possible economic gains.
> 
> ...


Its all about drumming up fear...  giving up our freedoms to her socialist command.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Feb 12, 2019)

Confounding said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Confounding said:
> ...


Still waiting for you to address your epicly failed modeling...


----------



## Sunsettommy (Feb 12, 2019)

Penelope said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



You fail to notice that ALL of your links is a SINGLE issue polling and surveys, while Political Chick started a thread about a major Gallup poll that used* open ended questions* such as this one:

"What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today?  [OPEN-ENDED]"

The people never once brought up global warming/climate change to answer that open ended question, which is the point that skookerasibil has been making for years now. When you allow for open replies to ANY CONCERNS, global warming/climate change is at the bottom of the list or not even mentioned at all, a point YOU and many warmists fail to understand, which is obvious when you resort to bringing up SINGLE TOPIC polls and surveys that only asked questions about global warming/climate change and nothing else.

Stop being misleading and dishonest on this!


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 27, 2019)

*We have a winner in the category of "Unintentional Humor"!!!!!!!*

Elizabeth Warren said our navy....threatened by rising sea levels!!!

Boats.....rising water.....they might...what?......float away???????


*Warren: ‘Our Naval Bases Are Under Attack Not By Enemy Fleets But by Rising Sea Levels’*
*Warren: ‘Our Naval Bases Are Under Attack Not By Enemy Fleets But by Rising Sea Levels’*


Democrats.....sick folks.


----------



## Crick (Mar 27, 2019)

A quick quiz for you Ms Chic.  What do all naval bases possess?

Piers.  Fixed structures to which large ships may be moored.  As sea level rises, moored ships rise with respect to the piers.  Problem.


----------



## Marion Morrison (Mar 27, 2019)

Crick said:


> A quick quiz for you Ms Chic.  What do all naval bases possess?
> 
> Piers.  Fixed structures to which large ships may be moored.  As sea level rises, moored ships rise with respect to the piers.  Problem.



Mooring lines cannot be lengthened, dumbass?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 27, 2019)

Crick said:


> A quick quiz for you Ms Chic.  What do all naval bases possess?
> 
> Piers.  Fixed structures to which large ships may be moored.  As sea level rises, moored ships rise with respect to the piers.  Problem.



If only there were a way to build taller piers...…….


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 27, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > A quick quiz for you Ms Chic.  What do all naval bases possess?
> ...




Well.....there is.....
First we take over the world's economy
Then we build gulags for those deniers.....
Then....


----------



## miketx (Mar 27, 2019)

Crick said:


> A quick quiz for you Ms Chic.  What do all naval bases possess?
> 
> Piers.  Fixed structures to which large ships may be moored.  As sea level rises, moored ships rise with respect to the piers.  Problem.


Make the rope longer. Duh.


----------



## Crick (Mar 27, 2019)

And the brows and the shore power leads and redesign the camels and rerun power and steam and phone lines..

I guess the Navy was confused.  They should have asked you Mike.  Silly sailors.


----------



## miketx (Mar 27, 2019)

Crick said:


> And the brows and the shore power leads and redesign the camels.
> 
> I guess the Navy was confused.  They should have asked you Mike.  Silly sailors.


Just about as sensible as your global warming BULLSHIT you carp about everyday.


----------



## Crick (Mar 27, 2019)

How much mainstream science backed up your "make the ropes longer"?


----------



## Crick (Mar 27, 2019)

Rising Seas Are Flooding Virginia’s Naval Base, and There’s No Plan to Fix It





Rising oceans threaten to submerge 128 military bases: report

and

National Defense in Jeopardy: Rising Seas Put These Military Bases at Risk of Destruction


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 27, 2019)

Crick said:


> And the brows and the shore power leads and redesign the camels and rerun power and steam and phone lines..
> 
> I guess the Navy was confused.  They should have asked you Mike.  Silly sailors.



How many trillions do we need to spend on windmills so we don't need to change the bases?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 27, 2019)

Crick said:


> View attachment 252594
> Rising Seas Are Flooding Virginia’s Naval Base, and There’s No Plan to Fix It
> 
> View attachment 252595
> ...



If only we had more green energy, the land wouldn't sink......durr


----------



## Crick (Mar 27, 2019)

If only we had less CO2, the ocean wouldn't rise.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 28, 2019)

Crick said:


> And the brows and the shore power leads and redesign the camels and rerun power and steam and phone lines..
> 
> I guess the Navy was confused.  They should have asked you Mike.  Silly sailors.




*"Why would Al Gore buy a 9 million dollar house by the ocean if he thinks that the oceans are going to rise by 10 feet?"*
*https://www.quora.com/Why-would-Al-...-that-the-oceans-are-going-to-rise-by-10-feet*


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 28, 2019)

Crick said:


> If only we had less CO2, the ocean wouldn't rise.





A quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal _Nature Climate Change_ on April 25.

Studies have shown that *increased* concentrations of *carbon dioxide* increase photosynthesis, spurring *plant growth*. While rising *carbon dioxide* concentrations in the air *can* be beneficial for *plants*, it is also the chief culprit of climate change.Apr 26, 2016


CO2 is making Earth greener—for now – Climate Change: Vital ...




CO2 is making Earth greener—for now – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet


----------



## Crick (Mar 28, 2019)

Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia
A 2017 article states that increased CO2 levels have a negative impact on the nutritional quality of various human food crops, by increasing the levels of carbohydrates, such as glucose, while decreasing the levels of important nutrients such as protein, iron, and zinc. Crops experiencing a decrease in protein include rice, wheat, barley and potatoes.[1]

Reference
1)  Archer, D. (2005). "Fate of fossil fuel CO2 in geologic time". _J. Geophys. Res_. *110*. Bibcode:2005JGRC..11009S05A. doi:10.1029/2004JC002625.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 28, 2019)

PoliticalChic said:


> Remember this, from the first Republican President?
> 
> *You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.*
> 
> ...


Tell that to the people in Nebraska and Iowa.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 28, 2019)

Old Rocks said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Remember this, from the first Republican President?
> ...



There were no floods before we used fossil fuels, eh?


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 28, 2019)

PoliticalChic said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > And the brows and the shore power leads and redesign the camels and rerun power and steam and phone lines..
> ...


Why would some one like you like continually about this? Montecito, California, lies at 180 ft above sea level. 

Montecito, California - Wikipedia


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 28, 2019)

PoliticalChic said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > If only we had less CO2, the ocean wouldn't rise.
> ...


I am so sure that the farmers in Nebraska and Iowa are so happy to see how much greener their crops will be this year. I am also so sure that they are so thankful that the floods took care of all that grain and soybeans that they could not sell this year because of the Trump tariffs.


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 28, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


We are seeing an increase in both the number of floods, and the amount of water in those floods worldwide. So that kind of comment is just a deflection to avoid reality.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 28, 2019)

Old Rocks said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



We are seeing an increase in both the number of floods, and the amount of water in those floods worldwide. 

What's the proper number of floods and the proper amount of water?
How do you know?


----------



## westwall (Mar 28, 2019)

Crick said:


> A quick quiz for you Ms Chic.  What do all naval bases possess?
> 
> Piers.  Fixed structures to which large ships may be moored.  As sea level rises, moored ships rise with respect to the piers.  Problem.







According to you silly people the piers are supposed to already be under water.  Hansen, one of your heros famously said that by, oh a few years ago now, the West Side Highway would be under water.

Last time I checked it is still the same.


----------



## westwall (Mar 28, 2019)

Old Rocks said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...







Bullshit.  There has been no flood to equal the Great Flood of 1862 when the Central Valley of California was turned into a lake.  Facts say you're a baldfaced liar.

Here's the dumb downed version from wiki as that seems the limit of your intellect.

The *Great Flood of 1862* was the largest flood in the recorded history of Oregon, Nevada, and California, occurring from December 1861 to January 1862, caused by an ARkStorm. It was preceded by weeks of continuous rains and snows in the very high elevations that began in Oregon in November 1861 and continued into January 1862. This was followed by a record amount of rain from January 9–12, and contributed to a flood that extended from the Columbia River southward in western Oregon, and through California to San Diego, and extended as far inland as Idaho in the Washington Territory, Nevada and Utahin the Utah Territory, and Arizona in the western New Mexico Territory. The ARkStorm dumped an equivalent of 10 feet of rainfall in California, in the form of rain and snow, over a period of 43 days.[1][2] Immense snowfalls in the mountains of the far western United States caused more flooding in Idaho, Arizona, New Mexico, and Sonora, Mexico the following spring and summer as the snow melted.

The event was capped by a warm intense storm that melted the high snow load. The resulting snow-melt flooded valleys, inundated or swept away towns, mills, dams, flumes, houses, fences, and domestic animals, and ruined fields. It has been described as the worst disaster ever to strike California.[3]

Great Flood of 1862 - Wikipedia


----------



## Crick (Mar 28, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > And the brows and the shore power leads and redesign the camels and rerun power and steam and phone lines..
> ...



You seem like a sensible guy.  Would you recommend that when faced by a problem like this, we do nothing to mitigate the CAUSE of the sea level rise?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 28, 2019)

Crick said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Instead of throwing tax dollars at windmills, solar panels and electric cars, throw it at something useful. 
Like nuclear.

If you really want to cut US emissions, boot 15 million illegal aliens. 
They'll release less CO2 back in their home country than they will here.


----------



## skookerasbil (Mar 28, 2019)

Old Rocks said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Sucks for sure.....but that's what happens after unusually heavy snows in the winter!


----------



## Marion Morrison (Mar 28, 2019)

Crick said:


> And the brows and the shore power leads and redesign the camels and rerun power and steam and phone lines..
> 
> I guess the Navy was confused.  They should have asked you Mike.  Silly sailors.



This is English? I think not.

Nobody redesigns camels except God.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Mar 28, 2019)

Confounding said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Confounding said:
> ...



They already know, since it was the SCIENTISTS who made the Ice core charts and the MWP chart in the first place.

You must have been a pet rock in a previous incarnation, your head is still full of it today.

Try something new for a change, THINK and READ it out before you post.


----------



## hunarcy (Mar 29, 2019)

Confounding said:


> I guess Europe, Asia and the scientists who know more about it than anybody need to catch up with retards from the United States.



http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/docs/findings/ESS8_toplines_issue_9_climatechange.pdf


----------



## Flopper (Mar 29, 2019)

PoliticalChic said:


> Remember this, from the first Republican President?
> 
> *You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.*
> 
> ...


According to a March 25, 2019 Poll:

Americans as Concerned as Ever About Global Warming

66% believe global warming is caused by human activity, near all-time high
65% Say most scientist believe Global Warming is 
occurring
59% Believe the effects of Global Warning have already begun
For the first time since 2001, a majority of Americans are classified as Concerned Believers. 
Americans as Concerned as Ever About Global Warming


----------



## SSDD (Mar 29, 2019)

Old Rocks said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > *"Weather, Climate, and Climate Doomsday: Why Do Climate Alarmist Predictions Fail?*
> ...



Seems that you have lied so much that you have come to believe your own bullshit...  Hansen's predictions were an abject failure.  The warming has been less than his business as usual scenario even though our CO2 production has not been business as usual.  We produced 25% more CO2 than he projected.  Had he increased his warming prediction assuming a 25% increase in CO2, his prediction of warming would have been even higher...Then there is the fact that there were two very large El Nino events that he didn't consider which raised temperatures for him and kept his predictions from being completely out of the ball park.  It was the blind luck of the two El Nino events that kept his prediction from being completely outrageous.  He failed miserably and yet you still believe him, and now apparently even believe yourself when you lie in an effort to defend him.


----------



## SSDD (Mar 29, 2019)

PoliticalChic said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



And kids were so poorly educated that they still failed...these are the people who believe in man made climate change and hang on every word that an ignorant twit like OAC has to say..


----------



## skookerasbil (Mar 29, 2019)

Flopper said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Remember this, from the first Republican President?
> ...



The change in those #'s is rather insignificant....they've always looked similar.

But words and actions.....big difference. In other words, people are concerned....but not really that concerned. Tons of evidence too. When Pew does their " voter concern" poll at every election, global warming is waaaaaaaay down on the bottom of the concern list. Since 2010.

Those polls are posted throughout the thread *MORE PROOF THE SKEPTICS ARE WINNING. *The thread is always available on the first page of this forum because it is ePiC.


----------



## Crick (Mar 29, 2019)

Polls in the US and globally currently show a majority of people believe AGW, believe it is a threat and believe our governments need to deal with it.  Trump's withdrawal from the Paris Accords.

Surveys asking participants to prioritize a list of issues does NOT rebut those findings.  You know that, yet you still seem to live and breathe on such worthless statistics.


----------



## Votto (Mar 29, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Gore still has Europe duped?

I thought a British court found that his movie about global warming was propaganda?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 29, 2019)

Old Rocks said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > *"Weather, Climate, and Climate Doomsday: Why Do Climate Alarmist Predictions Fail?*
> ...


Your still grasping on this pile of political excrement... Gawd... There is no hope for those who choose to be ignorant..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Mar 29, 2019)

Votto said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


Europe is censoring all skeptical positions and scrubbing them. Yes the fraud was exposed but the kings and socialists have taken control of the information flow in an attempt to keep people ignorant.  Its the only way they can win on the man made global warming lie.


----------



## mamooth (Mar 29, 2019)

Votto said:


> [Gore still has Europe duped?
> 
> I thought a British court found that his movie about global warming was propaganda?



So who told you such a bizarre thing, and why did you fall for such dumb propaganda?

My post from six months earlier post, #319, is still dead-on.  Deniers have been reduced to screaming about polls, politicians and conspiracy theories. If all the science didn't contradict their idiot conspiracy babbling, they could refer to the science. But the science does contradict all of their idiot conspiracy babbling, hence they're forced to change to the topic to anything but the science.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Mar 29, 2019)

rightwinger said:


> Looks like Conservative misinformation is working




Some misinformation


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 29, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...




Believe in the scam is more prevalent in Europe than in the United States?

Seems to fit the historical legal difference....

The Codex still exerts its influence on Europe and is known as the Civil Law tradition. The Inquisition, Renaissance, the Napoleonic Code, and the Holocaust are all, in part, an outgrowth of the _lex regia: “The will of the prince has the force of law.”( Quod principi placuit, legis haget vigorem) _ Today, European law gives preeminence to legislatures, the institution that drafted the statute prevails*. In Anglo-American Common Law tradition*, the institution that interprets and adjudicates the statute has the final word. Due to the absence of a jury, and the deference to whomever writes the laws, Civil Law tradition is friendlier to tyrannical regimes than the Common Law tradition.  Under Justinians’ code the emperor is named _nomos empsychos, _“law incarnate.”
See "Justinian's Flea"


----------



## Votto (Mar 29, 2019)

mamooth said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> > [Gore still has Europe duped?
> ...


Al Gore's 'nine Inconvenient Untruths'


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 29, 2019)

PoliticalChic said:


> *Looks Like The Cat's Out Of The Bag.... *




Now you've gone and done it!  *MEOW!*


----------



## mamooth (Mar 29, 2019)

Gore's climate film has scientific errors - judge

---
Mr Justice Barton yesterday said that while the film was "broadly accurate" in its presentation of climate change, he identified nine significant errors in the film,
---

So, the judge called the film "broadly accurate". That seems rather the opposite of "propaganda".


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 29, 2019)

"There are people who nonetheless believe that climate change is a world-threatening calamity and that exaggeration is a necessary tool to galvanize public opinion. If you Google the phrase "12 years to save the planet," you'll find people who think it's literally true.

The problem is that we've heard these things before. In 1989, a U.N. official predicted "entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000." In 2008, Al Gore warned that the northern polar ice cap could be gone in five years.

Melting polar ice is something to worry about, but it's not gone.

The reasons this is a political problem for climate-change warriors should be obvious. First, they are their own worst enemy when it comes to maintaining credibility. By working on the theory that they have to scare the bejeebus out of the public, they made it easy for people to dismiss them when their Chicken Little prophecies didn't materialize."
Democrats Taking A Nonsensical Approach To Climate Change


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 29, 2019)

Flopper said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Remember this, from the first Republican President?
> ...



*For the first time since 2001, a majority of Americans are classified as Concerned Believers.*

And yet, not concerned enough to want to waste...err...invest any serious money to make sure the 
climate never ever changes again.

_The survey results also suggest that the amount that people are willing to pay monthly varies. Fifty-seven percent are willing to pay at least $1 per month. The share declines with the monthly cost: 23 percent would pay at least $40 monthly, and 16 percent would pay at least $100 each month. However, the fact that 43 percent are unwilling to pay anything underscores the polarization about climate change. Party identification and acceptance of climate change are the main correlates of whether people are willing to pay, with Democrats being consistently more inclined to pay a fee. _

New Poll: Nearly Half Of Americans Are More Convinced Than They Were Five Years Ago That Climate Change Is Happening, With Extreme Weather Driving Their Views  | Energy Policy Institute at University of Chicago


----------



## Flopper (Mar 29, 2019)

skookerasbil said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


People can be in crisis mode for only so long.  After a while it becomes the norm and it's no long on their list of concerns.  This is what happened in the 50's and 60's as everyone prepared for nuclear annihilation. By the end of the 60's and no nuclear bombs had fallen, most people lost interest.  The same thing will happen with Trump's emergency at border.  This why I think there will be no major efforts to stop climate change until the weather seriously threatens life and the economy.


----------



## Flopper (Mar 29, 2019)

mamooth said:


> Gore's climate film has scientific errors - judge
> 
> ---
> Mr Justice Barton yesterday said that while the film was "broadly accurate" in its presentation of climate change, he identified nine significant errors in the film,
> ...


That was about 14 years.  Science like everything else changes.


----------



## jc456 (Mar 29, 2019)

PoliticalChic said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > What's a government school Ms Chic?
> ...


----------



## Crick (Mar 30, 2019)

What sort of amazing school did you graduate from Ms Chic?  They seemed to have skipped right past the Socratic Method to bone you up on Whizzo the Circus Clown.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 30, 2019)

Crick said:


> What sort of amazing school did you graduate from Ms Chic?  They seemed to have skipped right past the Socratic Method to bone you up on Whizzo the Circus Clown.




The school with the best fight song in the nation.


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 30, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...




Meantime, in the real world while the Atheist-Socialists try to foist carbon credits and climate change on us as to all the evil man is doing to wildlife and the planet, reality kicks us in the teeth to what the planet is doing all on its own:

A century ago, a strain of pandemic flu killed up to 100 million people—5 percent of the world’s population. In 2013, a new mystery illness swept the western coast of North America, causing starfish to disintegrate. In 2015, a big-nosed Asian antelope known as the saiga lost two-thirds of its population—some 200,000 individuals—to what now looks to be a bacterial infection. But none of these devastating infections comes close to the destructive power of Bd—a singularly apocalyptic fungus that’s unrivaled in its ability not only to kill animals, but to delete entire species from existence.

Bd—_Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis _in full—kills frogs and other amphibians by eating away at their skin and triggering fatal heart attacks. It’s often said that the fungus has caused the decline or extinction of 200 amphibian species, but that figure is almost two decades out-of-date. New figures, compiled by a team led by Ben Scheele from the Australian National University, are much worse.

Scheele’s team estimates that the fungus has caused the decline of 501 amphibian species—about 6.5 percent of the known total. Of these, 90 have been wiped out entirely. Another 124 have fallen by more than 90 percent, and their odds of recovery are slim. Never in recorded history has a single disease burned down so much of the tree of life. “It rewrote our understanding of what disease could do to wildlife,” Scheele says.

“It’s a terrifying summary,” says Jodi Rowley from the Australian Museum. “We knew it was bad, but this really confirms how bad. And these are just the declines we know about.”

The Worst Disease Ever Recorded

Mankind can't even come close to competing with nature!


----------



## Sunsettommy (Mar 30, 2019)

Flopper said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Remember this, from the first Republican President?
> ...



Oh look another dishonest, misleading *SINGLE ISSUE* polling mantra, where you can always get a high score on something because there are no other concerns allowed to reduce the score. Dishonest and misleading, don't you climate doomsday nuts ever think about what you write?

Go back to post ONE, where it allows_ open ended_ *MULTIPLE issues* to be CHOSEN in a poll that makes clear what people really think about global warming, it didn't even get a single mention. That is the honest way to gauge how people place their concerns that are important to them.


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 30, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Confounding said:
> ...






 

Oh Look!  Here goes perrenial pinhead Abu Afuk again with one of his ubiquitous Funnys.  He funnies anything that doesn't agree with him like it makes a freeking difference.  Now he thinks animals having their skin eaten through until they have a heart attack is funny!


----------



## Flopper (Mar 30, 2019)

Sunsettommy said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...





Sunsettommy said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


Actually it is listed (Environment/Pollution).
The link in your post does not point directly to Gallup but Climate Depot, a project of CFACT, a climate change denier for over two decades.  If you follow the links, you will see it does not lead to to the Gallup survey at all but to a PDF which is not the survey but information on how a survey on consumption habits was conducted.  Pardon me if I'm a bit suspicious but I find most of the climate change denier's links either don't support their article, are misleading or complete fabrications.
New Gallup Poll: Americans do not even mention global warming as a problem – 36 ‘problems’ cited, but not climate

Satisfaction With the U.S. and Most Important Problem (Trends)


----------



## Crick (Mar 30, 2019)

PoliticalChic said:


> Remember this, from the first Republican President?
> 
> *You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.*
> 
> ...



With Trump in office, an Earth-destroying asteroid would have to take second place.

And, I have to ask, but when you say you have to find a whole new bunch of human piñatas, are you suggesting that you have been metaphorically bearing people who accept mainstream science with sticks and now you believe those victims are gone and you have to find new ones?


----------



## jc456 (Mar 30, 2019)

mamooth said:


> Gore's climate film has scientific errors - judge
> 
> ---
> Mr Justice Barton yesterday said that while the film was "broadly accurate" in its presentation of climate change, he identified nine significant errors in the film,
> ...


When did a judge become a film critic


----------



## Crick (Mar 30, 2019)

When did he become a scientist?

FWIW, "roadly accurate" is infinitely better than anything you and yours have come up with in the last ten years.


----------



## Flopper (Mar 30, 2019)

Crick said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Remember this, from the first Republican President?
> ...


He would just call it false news.


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 30, 2019)

Crick said:


> A quick quiz for you Ms Chic.  What do all naval bases possess?
> 
> Piers.  Fixed structures to which large ships may be moored.  As sea level rises, moored ships rise with respect to the piers.  Problem.



Let's see.. If they were built in 1920s at about 1"/decade, that's a whole 8 or 9"... About the size of foot long dog at Sonic.. LOL.... 

And it'll be another 8 or 9" in ANOTHER 80 years.. I think the Sea Bees can handle this WITHOUT the politicos grandstanding.. 

But I wager the BIGGER concern is adding another ENTIRE ocean to chase the Chinese and Russians around in.  Might need an "Arctic Fleet Command" that operates a whole 3 or 4 months a year by 2070...


----------



## Marion Morrison (Mar 30, 2019)

Crick said:


> How much mainstream science backed up your "make the ropes longer"?


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 30, 2019)

Crick said:


> View attachment 252594
> Rising Seas Are Flooding Virginia’s Naval Base, and There’s No Plan to Fix It
> 
> View attachment 252595
> ...



2nd picture -- that building is 15 ft above sea level easy.. You can see the bay in the background. That's a DRAINAGE problem, not a GW problem.. 

Also your article about the 16 bases "threaten" uses projections that are NOT realistic.. Most based on 


*Projected sea level rise: *3.7 to 6.1 feet by 2100
NOT gonna happen.. Emissions scenarios and other catastrophic aspects of modeling this scary number are not likely... The REPORTS never treat the worst cases as "likely"... 

And I worked at Kennedy Space Center. Been OUT to most of the launch pads.. They are 20 ft min above sea level.. And they are almost impervious to high tide and storm surge if there's not a bird on pad...


----------



## Wyatt earp (Mar 30, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > View attachment 252594
> ...



Its weird how all of a sudden the words "Erosion" and "Island sinking" all of a sudden left their vocabulary's the past 10 years or so.


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 30, 2019)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Looks like Conservative misinformation is working
> ...




*"Conservative misinformation."*
*"Man-Made Climate Change."*

*

 *

*The climate monger Leftards won't bother reading this but you ought to.*

Just the other day I read where someone touted an article claiming that all the Earth's volcanoes and nature's output amounts to something like 1% of what man does!  Does anyone remember being told that?  Well, just imagine if man put out *IN ONE INSTANT:*

*energy released more than that of a billion Hiroshima bombs*
*material several times hotter than the surface of the sun that set fire to everything within a thousand miles*
*giant tsunamis tearing up coastlines, sometimes peeling up hundreds of feet deep of rock, pushing the debris inland and then sucking it back out into deep water*
*dust and soot preventing all sunlight from reaching the planet’s surface for months*
*photosynthesis all but stopped killing most of the plant life, extinguishing the phytoplankton in the oceans causing the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere to plummet*
*seventy-five per cent of all species went extinct*
*more than 99.9999 per cent of all living organisms on Earth died*
*a trillion tons of carbon dioxide released in an instant*
*ten billion tons of methane*
*a billion tons of carbon monoxide*
*ten trillion tons of sulfur compounds aloft*
*acid rain that was potent enough to strip the leaves from plants and to leach the nutrients from the soil*
*I think any reasonable person will admit that all of that at once is many times worse than spread out over years and decades!*

A sci-fi horror story?  Predictions for man's future actions?

Nope.  This already happened at least once.  And man didn't do it.  It happened 66million years ago as calculated by one of the most powerful computers in the world and in fact, LEFT US WITH THE WORLD WE HAVE TODAY.

Let me put that another way:   WE WOULDN'T BE HERE IF THAT HADN'T HAPPENED.

The WORST thing that ever happened to this planet was actually necessary in order to bring about the BEST thing that ever happened:  THE RISE OF A TECHNOLOGICAL, SELF-AWARE SPECIES.

_If, on a certain evening about sixty-six million years ago, you had stood somewhere in North America and looked up at the sky, you would have soon made out what appeared to be a star. If you watched for an hour or two, the star would have seemed to grow in brightness, although it barely moved. That’s because it was not a star but an asteroid, and it was headed directly for Earth at about forty-five thousand miles an hour. Sixty hours later, the asteroid hit. The air in front was compressed and violently heated, and it blasted a hole through the atmosphere, generating a supersonic shock wave. The asteroid struck a shallow sea where the Yucatán peninsula is today. In that moment, the Cretaceous period ended and the Paleogene period began._

_A few years ago, scientists at Los Alamos National Laboratory used what was then one of the world’s most powerful computers, the so-called Q Machine, to model the effects of the impact. The result was a slow-motion, second-by-second false-color video of the event. Within two minutes of slamming into Earth, the asteroid, which was at least six miles wide, had gouged a crater about eighteen miles deep and lofted twenty-five trillion metric tons of debris into the atmosphere. Picture the splash of a pebble falling into pond water, but on a planetary scale. When Earth’s crust rebounded, a peak higher than Mt. Everest briefly rose up. The energy released was more than that of a billion Hiroshima bombs, but the blast looked nothing like a nuclear explosion, with its signature mushroom cloud. Instead, the initial blowout formed a “rooster tail,” a gigantic jet of molten material, which exited the atmosphere, some of it fanning out over North America. Much of the material was several times hotter than the surface of the sun, and it set fire to everything within a thousand miles. In addition, an inverted cone of liquefied, superheated rock rose, spread outward as countless red-hot blobs of glass, called tektites, and blanketed the Western Hemisphere._

_Some of the ejecta escaped Earth’s gravitational pull and went into irregular orbits around the sun. Over millions of years, bits of it found their way to other planets and moons in the solar system. Mars was eventually strewn with the debris—just as pieces of Mars, knocked aloft by ancient asteroid impacts, have been found on Earth. A 2013 study in the journal Astrobiology estimated that tens of thousands of pounds of impact rubble may have landed on Titan, a moon of Saturn, and on Europa and Callisto, which orbit Jupiter—three satellites that scientists believe may have promising habitats for life. Mathematical models indicate that at least some of this vagabond debris still harbored living microbes. The asteroid may have sown life throughout the solar system, even as it ravaged life on Earth._

_The asteroid was vaporized on impact. Its substance, mingling with vaporized Earth rock, formed a fiery plume, which reached halfway to the moon before collapsing in a pillar of incandescent dust. Computer models suggest that the atmosphere within fifteen hundred miles of ground zero became red hot from the debris storm, triggering gigantic forest fires. As the Earth rotated, the airborne material converged at the opposite side of the planet, where it fell and set fire to the entire Indian subcontinent. Measurements of the layer of ash and soot that eventually coated the Earth indicate that fires consumed about seventy per cent of the world’s forests. Meanwhile, giant tsunamis resulting from the impact churned across the Gulf of Mexico, tearing up coastlines, sometimes peeling up hundreds of feet of rock, pushing debris inland and then sucking it back out into deep water, leaving jumbled deposits that oilmen sometimes encounter in the course of deep-sea drilling._

_The damage had only begun. Scientists still debate many of the details, which are derived from the computer models, and from field studies of the debris layer, knowledge of extinction rates, fossils and microfossils, and many other clues. But the over-all view is consistently grim. The dust and soot from the impact and the conflagrations prevented all sunlight from reaching the planet’s surface for months. Photosynthesis all but stopped, killing most of the plant life, extinguishing the phytoplankton in the oceans, and causing the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere to plummet. After the fires died down, Earth plunged into a period of cold, perhaps even a deep freeze. Earth’s two essential food chains, in the sea and on land, collapsed. About seventy-five per cent of all species went extinct. More than 99.9999 per cent of all living organisms on Earth died, and the carbon cycle came to a halt._

_Earth itself became toxic. When the asteroid struck, it vaporized layers of limestone, releasing into the atmosphere a trillion tons of carbon dioxide, ten billion tons of methane, and a billion tons of carbon monoxide; all three are powerful greenhouse gases. The impact also vaporized anhydrite rock, which blasted ten trillion tons of sulfur compounds aloft. The sulfur combined with water to form sulfuric acid, which then fell as an acid rain that may have been potent enough to strip the leaves from any surviving plants and to leach the nutrients from the soil._

_One day sixty-six million years ago, life on Earth almost came to a shattering end. The world that emerged after the impact was a much simpler place. When sunlight finally broke through the haze, it illuminated a hellish landscape. The oceans were empty. The land was covered with drifting ash. The forests were charred stumps. The cold gave way to extreme heat as a greenhouse effect kicked in. Life mostly consisted of mats of algae and growths of fungus: for years after the impact, the Earth was covered with little other than ferns. Furtive, ratlike mammals lived in the gloomy understory._

_But eventually life emerged and blossomed again, in new forms. The KT event continues to attract the interest of scientists in no small part because the ashen print it left on the planet is an existential reminder. “We wouldn’t be here talking on the phone if that meteorite hadn’t fallen,” Smit told me, with a laugh. DePalma agreed. For the first hundred million years of their existence, before the asteroid struck, mammals scurried about the feet of the dinosaurs, amounting to little. “But when the dinosaurs were gone it freed them,” DePalma said. In the next epoch, mammals underwent an explosion of adaptive radiation, evolving into a dazzling variety of forms, from tiny bats to gigantic titanotheres, from horses to whales, from fearsome creodonts to large-brained primates with hands that could grasp and minds that could see through time._

_“We can trace our origins back to that event.”_

_The Day the Dinosaurs Died_

*SO THE NEXT TIME SOME IDIOT TELLS YOU THAT MAN PUTS OUT FAR MORE THAN NATURE OR THAT WE ARE ON THE VERGE OF CAUSING A MAJOR CRISIS OR MIGHT BE CAUSING THE EXTINCTION OF A FEW SPECIES, READ HIM THIS*.  Something ten million million times worse than anything we can imagine actually brought about the beautiful green, lush, blue-skied planet we have today, with the most advanced species of life to have even known to have lived_, _and the Earth isn't going to be forever ruined by a few cars, trucks, planes and factories.  In fact, it might actually lead to something BETTER.  Just like it did for us.


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 30, 2019)

Old Rocks said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Yeah -- but being a moron at quora doesn't mean you've thunk it out completely..  Al Gore the "They Played on YOUR FEARS" guy --- has only ONE WAY OUT of that hillside property..  And that's highway 101 right at the coast ON THE BEACH... 

Drone Footage Shows Flood Damage That Shut Down Highway 101 South of Santa Barbara


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 30, 2019)

Flopper said:


> 66% believe global warming is caused by human activity, near all-time high
> 65% Say most scientist believe Global Warming is
> occurring
> 59% Believe the effects of Global Warning have already begun



None of those questions are specific enough for a problem like this.  I'll give GW up to HALF the credit for the warming those people in the poll have seen in their lifetime.. It's certainly more than 1% right? 

And  not even the majority of climate scientists believe that the 0.6DEgC change in our lifetime is causing effects we can see..  No one single weather event can be attributed to a 0.6degC or 1DegC change in OVERALL atmos temperature...


----------



## flacaltenn (Mar 30, 2019)

*Getting harder to tell what the topic is here so that it can be moderated.. Started out as a "what people think about GW" thread and moved to other GW specifics.. Would be good to stay close to the ORIGINAL topic of this thread. Or start a new ones... 
*


----------



## Flopper (Mar 30, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


And the foundations of your post is you read where someone touted an article claiming...


toobfreak said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


And the foundation of this rather long post is you read where someone touted an article claiming...


----------



## Marion Morrison (Mar 30, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > A quick quiz for you Ms Chic.  What do all naval bases possess?
> ...



Have I mentioned that rope can be let out a little bit? Chain can too.


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 30, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> *Getting harder to tell what the topic is here so that it can be moderated.. Started out as a "what people think about GW" thread and moved to other GW specifics.. Would be good to stay close to the ORIGINAL topic of this thread. Or start a new ones... *




Best as I can tell this is the ENVIRONMENT forum and the OP thread was about climate change and the poll showing that people are not buying it so much anymore, so the topic should be about things relating to the environment, evidence relating to, supporting or refuting the veracity of climate change.  The post I just added shows the latest scientific evidence that the Chicxulub impact caused in a few hours the emissions of as much greenhouse gas as man puts out in 3,000 years thereby forever refuting the claim that man is producing 100 times more greenhouse gas than nature and if the Earth can rebound from that, it will rebound from ANYTHING man can ever do.


----------



## Crick (Mar 31, 2019)

PoliticalChic said:


> Remember this, from the first Republican President?
> 
> *You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.*
> 
> ...



The interpretation of these poll results come from Marc Morano (formerly Climate Communications Director for Sen James Inhofe) at Climate Depot.com (known conspiracy/pseudoscience website)


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 31, 2019)

Crick said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Remember this, from the first Republican President?
> ...





The only conspiracy is the global warming scam.


----------



## Crick (Mar 31, 2019)

Do you accept or reject the idea that all the world's climate scientists are members of a huge and perfectly executed conspiracy to lie to the public; that they have created the AGW issue out of whole cloth?


----------



## Marion Morrison (Mar 31, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > A quick quiz for you Ms Chic.  What do all naval bases possess?
> ...



I heard Sonic dogs were made from chicken beaks n feet. 

Hebrew National or Nathan's, they are not! 1 sec.. Yeah Nathan's is what I like.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 31, 2019)

Crick said:


> Do you accept or reject the idea that all the world's climate scientists are members of a huge and perfectly executed conspiracy to lie to the public; that they have created the AGW issue out of whole cloth?



Obviously not. Otherwise the Climategate perps wouldn't have had anyone to suppress.
No need to prevent a paper from being published if all the papers agree.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Mar 31, 2019)

Penelope said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...





No one ever said that there aren't a whole lot of fools.....


....bet you're concerned, huh?


----------



## Crick (Mar 31, 2019)

PoliticalChic said:


> “… where did that *famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming”* come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3,000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.
> 
> The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”
> 
> ...



From Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia

Here is a description of the poll to which you refer:

*o*  A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels. Seventy-five of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. The authors summarised the findings:

It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.[129]

 129) Doran, Peter T.; Zimmerman, Maggie Kendall (January 20, 2009). "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change". _Eos_. *90* (3): 22–23. Bibcode:2009EOSTr..90...22D. doi:10.1029/2009EO030002. ISSN 2324-9250.

And here are a few other sources for the high consensus values from the same Wikipedia article

*o*  A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers matching "global warming" or "global climate change". They found *4,014* which discussed the cause of recent global warming, and of these "*97.1%* endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming".[134]

*134)* Cook, John; Nuccitelli, Dana; Green, Sarah A.; Richardson, Mark; Winkler, Bärbel; Painting, Rob; Way, Robert; Skuce, Andrew (1 January 2013). "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature". _Environmental Research Letters_. *8* (2): 024024. Bibcode:2013ERL.....8b4024C. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024. ISSN 1748-9326.

and

*o* James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the *13,950 articles* in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[142]  13,926/13,950 = *99.828%*

*142)* Plait, P. (11 December 2012). "Why Climate Change Denial Is Just Hot Air". _Slate_. Retrieved 14 February 2014.

and

*o*  A follow-up analysis looking at* 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors* published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[143]  9,135/9,136 = *99.989%*

*143)*  Plait, P. (14 January 2014). "The Very, Very Thin Wedge of Denial". _Slate_. Retrieved 14 February 2014.

and

*o*  His 2015 paper on the topic, covering *24,210 articles published by 69,406 authors* during 2013 and 2014 found only five articles by four authors rejecting anthropogenic global warming. Over* 99.99%* of climate scientists did not reject AGW in their peer-reviewed research.[144]

*144)*  Powell, James Lawrence (1 October 2015). "Climate Scientists Virtually Unanimous Anthropogenic Global Warming Is True". _Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society_. *35* (5–6): 121–124. doi:10.1177/0270467616634958. ISSN 0270-4676.

and

*o  *In his latest paper, Powell reported that using rejection as the criterion of consensus, five surveys of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015, including several of those above, combine to *54,195 articles* with an average consensus of *99.94%*.[145]

*145)*  Powell, James Lawrence (2017-05-24). "The Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming Matters". _Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society_. *36* (3): 157–163.

I have posted this information repeatedly here.  If you had kept abreast _at all_ you would have been aware of how well supported is the scientific consensus on AGW

But, you didn't



PoliticalChic said:


> “Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.”   Ibid.



The Oregon Petition is statistical crap.  No attempts were made by the petition organizers to verify the names, educations or occupational specialties claimed by signatories.  From third party attempts we get:

*o  *In 2001, _Scientific American_ took a random sample "of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science."

Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition — one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.[30]

*30)* "Skepticism About Skeptics (sidebar of Climate of Uncertainty)". Scientific American. Archived from the originalon 2006-08-23., October 2001

and

*o  *Former _New Scientist_ correspondent Peter Hadfield said that scientists are not experts on every topic, as depicted by the character Brains in _Thunderbirds_. Rather, they must specialize:

In between Aaagard and Zylkowski, the first and last names on the petition, are an assortment of metallurgists, botanists, agronomists, organic chemists and so on. ... The vast majority of scientists who signed the petition have never studied climatology and don't do any research into it. It doesn't matter if you're a Ph.D. A Ph.D in metallurgy just makes you better at metallurgy. It does not transform you into some kind of expert in paleoclimatology. ... So the petition's suggestion that everyone with a degree in metallurgy or geophysics knows a lot about climate change, or is familiar with all the research that's been done, is patent crap.[31][32]

*31)  * Peter Hadfield. How my YouTube channel is converting climate change sceptics _The Guardian_. 29 March 2010.

*32) *  Peter Hadfield. Meet the Scientists. 25 May 2010.

You were right about one thing.  The consensus is not 97%.  For _every_ practical purpose, it is unanimous


----------



## Flopper (Mar 31, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Do you accept or reject the idea that all the world's climate scientists are members of a huge and perfectly executed conspiracy to lie to the public; that they have created the AGW issue out of whole cloth?
> ...


The serious papers on climate change appear in the journals of scientific associations and academies of science not in websites devoted to supporting or denying climate change.  Most of these published papers are too scientific for the layman. Last year there were over 12500 papers published.  From the list I saw, none were devoted to defending or denying climate change.  Those papers go back a number years.  These papers all deal with minutia such as Spatial and temporal patterns of mass bleaching of corals in the Anthropocene,  The demise of the largest and oldest African baobabs,  Mass balance of the Antarctic Ice Sheet from 1992 to 2017, Climate-driven declines in arthropod abundance restructure a rain-forest food web, etc...

It's difficult to find any new published scientific papers supporting or denying climate change.  Although this a subject of great interest among the cottage industry of AGW support and denial and lay press it's of little interest to the real scientific community because that issue was resolved years ago.  Unlike the lay press, science journals don't repeal the same papers over and over.


----------



## Crick (Mar 31, 2019)

You can often tell whether or not they accept it or reject is as a presupposition to their work.  And if you cannot, they don't get counted.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Mar 31, 2019)

Flopper said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



Once again you push a lying narrative that a lot of people "deny" climate change, when skeptics all agree climate does change. It is an old stupid narrative that needs to go away since the lies behind it are stupid as hell!

I see that you are not digging for contrary papers very well, there are *THOUSANDS *of published papers not supportive of the AGW conjecture:

1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism 

Skeptic Papers 2018 (1)

Skeptic Papers 2018 (2)

Skeptic Papers 2018 (3)

85 Papers: Low Sensitivity

There are more out there...…..

Then that first post in the thread, which you ignored, show that climate change concern isn't that important to people, only the few warmist people like you who swallows the stupid doomsday propaganda.

"New Gallup Poll: Americans do not even mention global warming as a problem – 36 ‘problems’ cited, but not climate


----------



## Marion Morrison (Mar 31, 2019)

Crick said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > “… where did that *famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming”* come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3,000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.
> ...



TL ; DR

What about Bahia? How much CO2 does Bahia absorb? What's that? Slightly less than Bermuda? 

Still 400% more than any plant listed by "The sky is falling" dumbasses? You betcha! Pound sand, tard.


----------



## Flopper (Apr 1, 2019)

Sunsettommy said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


We are not on the same page.  When I say published papers, I am referring papers written by research scientist and publish in recognized society journals, not articles based on papers, or selected papers over the last 10 years or excepts from papers on blogs.  There were plenty of papers in society journals disputing AGW, 10 or 15 years ago.  Since then the numbers have dwindled while the number coming out of web sites whose business is to support or deny AGW has increased.


----------



## Crick (Apr 1, 2019)

Crick said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > “… where did that *famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming”* come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3,000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.
> ...





Marion Morrison said:


> TL ; DR
> 
> What about Bahia? How much CO2 does Bahia absorb? What's that? Slightly less than Bermuda?
> 
> Still 400% more than any plant listed by "The sky is falling" dumbasses? You betcha! Pound sand, tard.



Did you perhaps post this in the wrong place?  This post (and this thread) concerns the consensus for AGW.


----------



## Marion Morrison (Apr 1, 2019)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Why did they exclude grass from plants that absorb CO2 in their studies, nimrod?


----------



## Crick (Apr 1, 2019)

From "1350 Peer Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments"

*Criteria for Inclusion:* All counted papers must be peer-reviewed, published in a scholarly journal and support a skeptic argument against ACC/AGW or Alarmism. This means the papers are either written by a skeptic, explicit to a skeptical position, or were already cited by and determined to be in support of a skeptic argument by highly credentialed scientists, such as Sherwood B. Idso _Ph.D. Research Scientist Emeritus, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory_ and Patrick J. Michaels _Ph.D. Climatology_.

The vast majority of skeptical arguments against AGW's validity would be classified as 'nit-picking'.  They do not refute or overturn AGW.  Such papers will be included in this list.  That they need only be "written by a skeptic" means they are not required to concern the climate or warming at all.

Listed under
*97 Articles Refuting The "97% Consensus"*

Tol (2016)
*Abstract*
Cook _et al_'s highly influential consensus study (2013 _Environ. Res. Lett._ 8 024024) finds different results than previous studies in the consensus literature. It omits tests for systematic differences between raters. Many abstracts are unaccounted for. The paper does not discuss the procedures used to ensure independence between the raters, to ensure that raters did not use additional information, and to ensure that later ratings were not influenced by earlier results. Clarifying these issues would further strengthen the paper, and establish it as our best estimate of the consensus.

Does this refute the consensus?  No.  Does this refute AGW?  No.

Dean (2015)  [This seems to be what would pass for an abstract in a real paper]
I read the study by Cook _et al_ with great interest [1]. The study used levels of endorsement of global warming as outlined in their table 2; however, I could see no mention as to how these levels were created and how reliable they were in terms of both inter-rater and intra-rater reliability (Cohen's kappa). Best practice on rater reliability indicates that both inter-rater and intra-rater should have been measured and documented in a study such as Dr Cook's [2] and I am surprised that this fact appears to have been neglected. It would be of considerable benefit to readers for some robust rate reliability metrics to be included, if at all possible.

Tol (2016) above, seems to be a repeat of Dean (2015).  Same comments would apply

Tol (2014b)
*Abstract*
A claim has been that 97% of the scientific literature endorses anthropogenic climate change (Cook et al., 2013. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 024024). This claim, frequently repeated in debates about climate policy, does not stand. A trend in composition is mistaken for a trend in endorsement. Reported results are inconsistent and biased. The sample is not representative and contains many irrelevant papers. Overall, data quality is low. Cook׳s validation test shows that the data are invalid. Data disclosure is incomplete so that key results cannot be reproduced or tested.

The shotgun approach.  Only the abstract is available without purchase so none of these claims may be verified.  This appears to be the exact same paper as Tol (2014a) but the accumulator has opted to count these as two distinct papers

Tol (2014a)
*Abstract*
A claim has been that 97% of the scientific literature endorses anthropogenic climate change (Cook et al., 2013. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 024024). This claim, frequently repeated in debates about climate policy, does not stand. A trend in composition is mistaken for a trend in endorsement. Reported results are inconsistent and biased. The sample is not representative and contains many irrelevant papers. Overall, data quality is low. Cook׳s validation test shows that the data are invalid. Data disclosure is incomplete so that key results cannot be reproduced or tested.

This is the original version of Tol (2014b)

Legates (2013)
*Abstract*
Agnotology is the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead. Legates et al. (Sci Educ 22:2007–2017, 2013) had questioned the applicability of agnotology to politically-charged debates. In their reply, Bedford and Cook (Sci Educ 22:2019–2030, 2013), seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus. Their definition of climate ‘misinformation’ was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. Agnotology, then, is a two-edged sword since either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly circulated by the other. Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain. Therefore, Legates et al. appropriately asserted that partisan presentations of controversies stifle debate and have no place in education.

Legates paper has been an offensive joke since the day it first appeared.  Legates counts papers as supporting AGW if and _only if_ they quote IPCC conclusions verbatim.  As a result he gets numbers wildly in divergence with any other study of the topic.  His paper could not be published in any climate-related journal, so it was rewritten as one concerning education and was reviewed by referees and published in a journal having zero expertise in climate science or the climate science literature.  100% bullshit.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 1, 2019)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...





Consensus???????

Nonsense.


1.     “…* where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? *It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” 

The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

Then of those, *only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”. *That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not!





77 out of 10,257 becomes 98%. 

Yup…figures don’t lie, but liars can figure.





2. Oh….BTW….

“Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.” Ibid.



Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

3.      That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not!



You remain another one of the mindless drones that leftist 'education' system cranks out like cogs and sprockets. Unique, just like every other reliable Democrat voter.


A *research group* by the name of the “Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine” solicited signatures for a petition (known now as the Oregon Petition) to have the United States reject the *Kyoto Protocol*  to set internationally binding emission reduction targets.

This petition reads, in its entirety:

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

the petition bore 31,487 *signatures* as of October 2016: The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,157 MS; 2,586 MD and DVM; and 12,715 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.
FACT CHECK: Did 30,000 Scientists Declare Climate Change a Hoax?


This unintentional humor from the Snopes attempt to marginalize the petition: “Aside from the potential political motivations behind the petition, the misleading tactics employed to gather signatures, and the lack of verification…”

*That pretty much describes the global warming scam*.

We all know the economic benefits that accrue from signing onto the global warming scam.....show me the benefits that accrue to those 31,000 who simply chose to tell the truth.

“Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.”

* What's their motive, you dunce?*


----------



## Crick (Apr 1, 2019)

Probably the same motivation as yours.

Where is the evidence that the 9,000 self-described PhDs aren't actually 200 PhDs and 8,800 unqualified liars?

And I may have missed it, but did you refute James L Powell four studies finding better than a 99% consensus from a sample of thousands of papers and thousands o authors?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 1, 2019)

"The oceans have long been considered our planet's heat sponge - a 2014 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change *(IPCC) stated that the oceans had absorbed 93% of the excess heat *that greenhouse gases have trapped within the Earth's atmosphere."

The Oceans Are Warming Even Faster Than We Previously Thought

Peer reviewed, right?

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter03_FINAL.pdf

*"Page not found.*

We have a new website and as a result many links to documents have changed. All the information from the previous website is on our archive page here: archive.ipcc.ch."

Gigantic several orders of magnitude oopsies


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 1, 2019)

Crick said:


> Probably the same motivation as yours.
> 
> Where is the evidence that the 9,000 self-described PhDs aren't actually 200 PhDs and 8,800 unqualified liars?
> 
> And I may have missed it, but did you refute James L Powell four studies finding better than a 99% consensus from a sample of thousands of papers and thousands o authors?





So....you realize that pretending that the scam t based on science....which it is not.....is career advancement, and bread on the table with grants...
....but there is nothing to be gained by telling the truth.


Exactly.


That leaves simpletons still parroting the Left's propaganda....raise your paw.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Apr 1, 2019)

Flopper said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Your pathetic claim is easily refuted because your excuses are dead on arrival, here is but a small sampling of papers from this list you ignored:

Skeptic Papers 2018 (3)

Shen et al 2018

*"...The results showed that both future climate change (precipitation and temperature) and hydrological response predicted by the twenty GCMs *[climate models]* were highly uncertain, and the uncertainty increased significantly over time*. For example, the change of mean annual precipitation increased from 1.4% in 2021–2050 to 6.5% in 2071–2100 for RCP4.5 in terms of the median value of multi-models, but the projected uncertainty reached 21.7% in 2021–2050 and 25.1% in 2071–2100 for RCP4.5."

======
Luo et al 2018

"Over the recent three decades sea surface temperate (SST) in the eastern equatorial Pacific has decreased, which helps reduce the rate of global warming. However, most CMIP5 model simulations with historical radiative forcing do not reproduce this Pacific La Niña-like cooling. Based on the assumption of “perfect” models, previous studies have suggested that errors in simulated internal climate variations and/or external radiative forcing may cause the discrepancy between the multi-model simulations and the observation...."

======
LaCour et al 2018

"Using lidar and radiative flux observations from space and ground, and a lidar simulator, we evaluate clouds simulated by climate models over the Greenland ice sheet, including predicted cloud cover, cloud fraction profile, cloud opacity, and surface cloud radiative effects. The representation of clouds over Greenland is a central concern for the models because clouds impact ice sheet surface melt. We find that over Greenland, most of the models have insufficient cloud cover during summer. In addition, all models create too few nonopaque, liquid-containing clouds optically thin enough to let direct solar radiation reach the surface (−1% to −3.5% at the ground level). Some models create too few opaque clouds. In most climate models, the cloud properties biases identified over all Greenland also apply at Summit, Greenland, proving the value of the ground observatory in model evaluation. At Summit, climate models underestimate cloud radiative effect (CRE) at the surface, especially in summer. The primary driver of the summer CRE biases compared to observations is the underestimation of the cloud cover in summer (−46% to −21%), which leads to an underestimated longwave radiative warming effect (CRELW = −35.7 to −13.6 W m−2 compared to the ground observations) and an underestimated shortwave cooling effect (CRESW = +1.5 to +10.5 W m−2 compared to the ground observations). Overall, the simulated clouds do not radiatively warm the surface as much as observed."

============================
There were 502 papers listed combined from the Skeptic papers 2018 three parts links I gave you.*, ALL of them from publishing journals*. There are 489 more for 2017 year....., and more available.

*I just gave you almost 1,000 papers that were published in 2016 and later*, your excuses are looking stupid now, and that you OBVIOUSLY didn't bother to read into the links I gave you that showed the listed papers were from publishing journals, not originated in a blog at all. It seems you are making poorly conceived lies as well, which is unsurprising as you are a proven science illiterate.


----------



## Crick (Apr 1, 2019)

Sunsettommy said:


> Your pathetic claim is easily refuted because your excuses are dead on arrival, here is but a small sampling of papers from this list you ignored:
> 
> Skeptic Papers 2018 (3)
> 
> ...



So, models become more uncertain with increased projection.  What an incredible facepalm of a surprise!



Sunsettommy said:


> ======
> Luo et al 2018
> 
> "Over the recent three decades sea surface temperate (SST) in the eastern equatorial Pacific has decreased, which helps reduce the rate of global warming. However, most CMIP5 model simulations with historical radiative forcing do not reproduce this Pacific La Niña-like cooling. Based on the assumption of “perfect” models, previous studies have suggested that errors in simulated internal climate variations and/or external radiative forcing may cause the discrepancy between the multi-model simulations and the observation...."



Most do not?  So, some do?  They reproduce a subtle phenomenon with no known cause?  Yeah... there's a complete failure for you.



Sunsettommy said:


> ======
> LaCour et al 2018
> 
> "Using lidar and radiative flux observations from space and ground, and a lidar simulator, we evaluate clouds simulated by climate models over the Greenland ice sheet, including predicted cloud cover, cloud fraction profile, cloud opacity, and surface cloud radiative effects. The representation of clouds over Greenland is a central concern for the models because clouds impact ice sheet surface melt. We find that over Greenland, most of the models have insufficient cloud cover during summer. In addition, all models create too few nonopaque, liquid-containing clouds optically thin enough to let direct solar radiation reach the surface (−1% to −3.5% at the ground level). Some models create too few opaque clouds. In most climate models, the cloud properties biases identified over all Greenland also apply at Summit, Greenland, proving the value of the ground observatory in model evaluation. At Summit, climate models underestimate cloud radiative effect (CRE) at the surface, especially in summer. The primary driver of the summer CRE biases compared to observations is the underestimation of the cloud cover in summer (−46% to −21%), which leads to an underestimated longwave radiative warming effect (CRELW = −35.7 to −13.6 W m−2 compared to the ground observations) and an underestimated shortwave cooling effect (CRESW = +1.5 to +10.5 W m−2 compared to the ground observations). Overall, the simulated clouds do not radiatively warm the surface as much as observed."



Maybe somebody should have checked this one first: "Over Greenland, most of the models have insufficient cloud cover during summer."  The thing is, Greenland's cloud cover HAS been decreasing.  See:
Greenland’s shrinking cloud cover speeds melt | Climate News Network
AND
Thinning summer cloud cover responsible for Greenland ice melt
AND
Decreasing cloud cover driving Greenland Ice Sheet Loss | PSI Intl
AND
Glaciology: Cloud loss melts Greenland

and then there's the final sentence in your abstract:  "...simulated clouds [ie, clouds in models] do not radiatively warm the surface as much as observed".  This is saying that reality is getting more warming than the models predict.  Hardly a refutation of AGW.

*Please!  Bring us some more!*


----------



## PoliticalChic (Apr 15, 2019)

Worried!!!

Voters all up in arms about the dangers of global warming....


"Campaign Issues


47% of voters support building a wall on the US-Mexico Border, 45% oppose, 8% are undecided.
41% of voters do not think large tech giants like Apple, Amazon, Facebook and Google should be broken up, 29% think they should be broken up, and 31% are undecided.
43% of voters do not support American intervention in Venezuela to overthrow the Maduro Regime, 27% do support American intervention, 31% were unsure.
55% of voters do not think individuals currently incarcerated should have the right to vote, 30% believe those incarcerated should be able to vote , and 15% are undecided on this issue.
65% of voters think that felons who completed their prison sentences should have the right to vote, 23% do not, and 12% are undecided."
Emerson Polling


See.....there it is...right....

....oh.....wait........


----------



## jc456 (Apr 15, 2019)

PoliticalChic said:


> Worried!!!
> 
> Voters all up in arms about the dangers of global warming....
> 
> ...


so I'd like to know from these loony left is, if they want to give incarcerated felons the right to vote, are they in favor of them having guns?  I mean what is the larger danger?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jun 27, 2019)

*"Scientists Recommend Reducing The Number Of Democratic Presidential Candidates To Help Fight Climate Change*
April 11th, 2019





WORLD—Scientists have issued a dire warning: the current number of Democratic presidential candidates is simply unsustainable.

“No one ever thought this many people would run for president,” said climate scientist Dr. Raymond Hall, “and the planet just can’t take it. We’re talking each of them eating up resources vying for airtime, printing stickers with trite slogans, and flying from Iowa to New Hampshire. If they were actually all to be in one place for a debate, it would be an ecological disaster.”

Scientists recommend the current Democratic field be reduced to less than half the current number or we could see an increase in hurricanes, droughts, kaiju, and “other climate change things.” As for what to do with the excess candidates, researcher Jeannie Perry said, “As always, I’d recommend firing them into space. Barring that, someone should just sit down with them and explain to them that no one is ever going to vote for them and hope that keeps them from running around consuming resources in a futile effort for presidential power.”

Scientists also have recommendations for the average citizen so they can help. First off, they say to never ever say anything even slightly encouraging to a politician, as they always take that as an impetus to run for president. They also say under no circumstances should anyone give money to a candidate, because that only fuels their destructive behavior. Added Dr. Hall, “It would literally be nicer to the planet to dump a barrel of nuclear waste into the ocean.”
Scientists Recommend Reducing The Number Of Democratic Presidential Candidates To Help Fight Climate Change


----------



## SSDD (Jun 28, 2019)

Flopper said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



I highly doubt that you have spent any amount of time actually looking at the scientific literature...You clearly believe that the AGW hypothesis is supported in the literature, but obviously haven't bothered to look yourself.  If you had, you would know that there has never been a single paper written by a research scientist and published in any society journal in which the claimed warming due to our activities has been empirically measured, quantified, and ascribed to greenhouse gasses.  Now in order to support the AGW hypothesis, don't you think that actually measuring, and quantifying the warming that we are supposed to be causing might be a good place to start?  Without even that basic research as a foundation, how much actual validity do you think the AGW hypothesis can possibly have?


----------



## SSDD (Jun 28, 2019)

Crick said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Can you name any other branch of science in which "consensus" is held up as evidence that the mainstream hypothesis is correct?  Any at all?  In every other branch of science, if you question the mainstream hypothesis or theory, you get inundated with actual science that supports the hypothesis...not so with climate science...you get talk of consensus because there is not enough actual science there to even bolster the claim as a hypothesis, much less a bona fide theory.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 28, 2019)

Any good Cult can claim they have "Consensus"


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jun 28, 2019)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Any good Cult can claim they have "Consensus"





Pretty much a description of the audience at those Democrat debates....


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 28, 2019)

SSDD said:


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



AGW Chart

Warming = Global Warming
Cooling = Climate Change
Consensus = Moonbat


----------



## Third Party (Jun 28, 2019)

PoliticalChic said:


> Remember this, from the first Republican President?
> 
> *You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.*
> 
> ...


Ever notice Lincoln used the word people like Biden uses the word folks?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jun 28, 2019)

CrusaderFrank said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...





I'd say that covers the lot of 'em.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jun 28, 2019)

Third Party said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Remember this, from the first Republican President?
> ...





This would be an exceptionally good place to put quotes.....


----------



## Third Party (Jun 28, 2019)

PoliticalChic said:


> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...





PoliticalChic said:


> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


"Good hitting always beats good pitching-and vice versa"-Yogi Berra


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jun 28, 2019)

Third Party said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Third Party said:
> ...




That was neither Lincoln nor Biden.....I see the spelling confused you with the latter.


----------



## Third Party (Jun 28, 2019)

PoliticalChic said:


> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


I thought latter was ladder? Anyway, favorite Lincoln quote, "If this is tea, then bring me coffee. But if this is coffee, then bring me tea!


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jun 28, 2019)

Third Party said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Third Party said:
> ...





Are you trying to subtly brag again about the trophies you've won at Chutes And Ladders???


----------



## Third Party (Jun 28, 2019)

PoliticalChic said:


> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


A. I am never subtle, and 2. Isn't it Chutes and Latters?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jun 28, 2019)

I see what you did there.....


----------



## Third Party (Jun 28, 2019)

PoliticalChic said:


> I see what you did there.....


Cute. I actually prefer Easy Money myself, like many other people.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jun 28, 2019)

Third Party said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > I see what you did there.....
> ...




For bail?


----------



## Third Party (Jun 28, 2019)

PoliticalChic said:


> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


Cuter. No, to buy more games.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 30, 2019)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Any good Cult can claim they have "Consensus"



It's one of the hallmarks of a good cult....if they don't have consensus, then they are no better than a third rate back room cult.


----------



## Marion Morrison (Jun 30, 2019)

Third Party said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Third Party said:
> ...



What does that even mean? My money comes hard.


----------



## Third Party (Jun 30, 2019)

Marion Morrison said:


> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


Some games are worth a boatload today.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Sep 23, 2019)

Flopper said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Remember this, from the first Republican President?
> ...



Another *SINGLE CONCERN* poll, which is why it is misleading since there is no contrast to many OTHER possible concerns that could be considered.

Warmists sure like single concern polls as it can be presented in a misleading way very easily. By EXCLUDING many other concerns to just a single concern, you can make small percentage of climate concern in a multiple poll, to be a big percentage number of concern in a single concern  poll.

You never learned to think logically.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Sep 23, 2019)

Sunsettommy said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Flopper writes:

Actually it is listed (Environment/Pollution).
The link in your post does not point directly to Gallup but Climate Depot, a project of CFACT, a climate change denier for over two decades.  If you follow the links, you will see it does not lead to to the Gallup survey at all but to a PDF which is not the survey but information on how a survey on consumption habits was conducted.  Pardon me if I'm a bit suspicious but I find most of the climate change denier's links either don't support their article, are misleading or complete fabrications.
New Gallup Poll: Americans do not even mention global warming as a problem – 36 ‘problems’ cited, but not climate

Satisfaction With the U.S. and Most Important Problem (Trends)

=====================

My reply:

It is clear you didn't bother to get past the chart in Climate Depot, where the link to the GALLUP website is found, and the poll question and chart they had *quoted from*. Here is the Gallup website with the question and the results of the poll ALL on the Gallup WEBSITE itself.

*Satisfaction With the U.S. and Most Important Problem (Trends)*

In general, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the way things are going in the United States at this time? What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today?

PDF poll result in the LINK
===

Your lie has been exposed.

It is clear you never read page FIVE (5) of the PDF, where it showed that Climate Depot honestly quoted, showing the *results of the survey based on the question.*

You are a lousy reader!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 23, 2019)

rightwinger said:


> Looks like Conservative misinformation is working



Did you chain yourself to the Chinese Embassy to protest their carbon footprint, the largest on the planet?


----------



## Oddball (Sep 23, 2019)

Confounding said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Looks like Conservative misinformation is working
> ...


Then why won't one of the Archbishops for "some of the most educated people on Earth" turn over his papers to a court of law for review?


----------



## Third Party (Sep 23, 2019)

Sunsettommy said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


There are no climate deniers-everybody knows we have climate. Everybody also knows that the climate is always changing. The argument is, does man's activity hasten global warming?


----------



## jc456 (Sep 23, 2019)

Third Party said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...


and all we asked for was observed empirical evidence to man's effect.  Why are you denying to provide the evidence?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 23, 2019)

Oddball said:


> Confounding said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Mann just had a case thrown out because he would not produce his data and dragged his feet so long that the court nuked his ass..  Now he gets to pay legal fees and court costs for Dr Ball....  TO Damn Funny!


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 23, 2019)

Third Party said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...


The actual question is how does CO2 affect the H2O in the atmosphere (or forcing). The AGW cult thinks it will cause catastrophic warming.  The empirical evidence shows just the opposite. H2O in our atmosphere scrubs CO2 from it and it takes on the energy, cools, and emits that energy in a bandwidth that CO2 can not effect. This is called climate sensitivity and that number has dropped form 2-3 deg C rise per decade to just 0.16 Deg C per decade, far below event the basic logarithmic expectations found in the lab for CO2.

The empirical evidence is damning and the AGW nutters dont want to admit that their fantasy is just that, a fantasy. Natural factors are kicking their collective asses..


----------



## rjs330 (Sep 25, 2019)

Crick said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Your pathetic claim is easily refuted because your excuses are dead on arrival, here is but a small sampling of papers from this list you ignored:
> ...



Here's the point. The science is NOT settled.  He brings scientific evidence that AGW is not happening.  You produce papers that say it is.  He proves that the consensus is NOT what people on the AGW side claim it is.  So, the science is NOT settled.  I wish guys like you would just admit that.  But you won't.  

There is too much evidence that man is not causing climate change and enough that shows AGW is not happening.  

So there is NO emergency to have to do anything right now. There is nothing wrong with wanting a clean environment. Cutting back on co2 was a good thing.  No one wants to breath dirty aire or drink dirty water.  I think we all agree.  But to say that we need massive immediate changes bas d upon questionable science is nothing but a power grab that suckers people like you to believe.


----------



## abu afak (Oct 8, 2019)

rjs330 said:


> Here's the point. The science is NOT settled.  He brings scientific evidence that AGW is not happening.  You produce papers that say it is.  He proves that the consensus is NOT what people on the AGW side claim it is.  So, the science is NOT settled.  I wish guys like you would just admit that.  But you won't. *There is too much evidence that man is not causing climate change and enough that shows AGW is not happening. *
> 
> So there is NO emergency to have to do anything right now. There is nothing wrong with wanting a clean environment. Cutting back on co2 was a good thing.  No one wants to breath dirty aire or drink dirty water.  I think we all agree.  But to say that we need massive immediate changes bas d upon questionable science is nothing but a power grab that suckers people like you to believe.


There is Not "Too much evidence that man is not causing claimate change."

There is No certain evidence of it.
There is a bit of debate over IF man is causing it, but virtually none he is not.
There is alot he is.


Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

"Opposing" (the AGW Consensus)

*Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,*[29]* NO national or international scientific body any longer rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.*[28][30]

Surveys of scientists and scientific literature

Various surveys have been conducted to evaluate scientific opinion on global warming. They have concluded that the majority of scientists support the idea of anthropogenic climate change.

In 2004, the geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[131] She analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.

Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. 75% of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories (either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view); 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change.

None of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable".
According to the report, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."....".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change


`​


----------

