# How Could Anyone Deny Manmade Climate Change?



## Weatherman2020 (Nov 17, 2015)

● “El Nino could make 2015 ‘the hottest year on record’… and 2016 will be even hotter.”
—Headline, London _Independent,_ September 14, 2015.


● “UK winter weather: El Nino could plunge country into long, snowy winter.”
—Headline, London _Independent,_ September 14, 2015.


● “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past.”
—Headline, London _Independent, _March 20, 2000

Toss in the fact those screaming at the clouds still fly private jets and heat and cool their 6,000 sq ft mansions and we know why.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 17, 2015)

Heat wave - The Watchers

*Warm and dry conditions to continue across the US West*
Unusually warm and dry weather has been persistent across the US West during October 2015. A number of temperature records have already been broken, and hot conditions are expected to continue throughout the week, increasing the risk of wildfires in already devastated a

October 12, 2015




*Hot and humid summer in Egypt: Heat wave claims 87 lives, 1 205 people hospitalized*
Another 11 people died on August 13, as the heat wave in Egypt intensified it's grip during the last couple of days. The death toll now rose to 87, Egypt's health ministry reports.The heat wave that was sweeping the countries of Middle East since last July, has

August 14, 2015




*Heat wave setting new historic record over Europe, relief expected early next week*
Second persistent heat wave of the summer season has set more temperature records in parts of Europe, during last week. Poland, Germany, Italy, Czech Republic, Belarus and Lithuania reported new all-time records, while the hot conditions are forecasted to last across mo

August 13, 2015




*Hong Kong reports the hottest day in the last 130 years*
The hottest day in the last 130 years was reported in Hong Kong on Saturday, August 8, 2015 when the temperatures rose up to 37.8 ºC (100 ºF) under the influence of Typhoon "Soudelor".The daily maximum temperature hit 36.3 ºC (97.3 ºF) in t

August 11, 2015




*Heat wave intensifies over Japan: Temperatures peak to break a 55 year old record*
The on-going heat wave in Japan intensified during the last week with reported death tolls rising to 55. More than 11 000 people were hospitalized due to consequences of extremely hot weather conditions across the country, the officials reported on August 4.

*Denialists predictions versus reality*


----------



## Scorpion (Nov 17, 2015)

Yeah, right.
Denier =heretic for you idiots.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 17, 2015)

Not at all. They don't have enough knowledge of science to be heretics, they are just stupid asses posting nonsense, like you.


----------



## Katzndogz (Nov 17, 2015)

No climate, anywhere on earth, has changed.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 17, 2015)

Weatherman2020 said:


> ● “El Nino could make 2015 ‘the hottest year on record’… and 2016 will be even hotter.”
> —Headline, London _Independent,_ September 14, 2015.
> 
> 
> ...



*El Nino could make 2015 ‘the hottest year on record’… and 2016 will be even hotter.”*

Wow! Scary! How long is that record again?


----------



## martybegan (Nov 17, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Not at all. They don't have enough knowledge of science to be heretics, they are just stupid asses posting nonsense, like you.



The science isn't the issue, your "more government more regulation less quality of life less freedom" solution is the issue.

Watermelons, all of you.


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 17, 2015)

Tipsycatlover said:


> No climate, anywhere on earth, has changed.


How long have you been totally insane?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 17, 2015)

We're only recently measuring ocean temperatures, but trust us, this was the Hottest SUMMA EVAH!!!! (once you add in adjusted land data and the fudges ocean temps. Don't ask for our emails, we're scientists adjusting data, man)


----------



## RollingThunder (Nov 17, 2015)

Weatherman2020 said:


> ● “El Nino could make 2015 ‘the hottest year on record’… and 2016 will be even hotter.”
> —Headline, London _Independent,_ September 14, 2015.
> 
> 
> ...



LOLOLOLOL.....so....anything more complex than tic-tac-toe is beyond your comprehension? You poor confused retard. 

PhD scientists who have studied the complexities of the Earth's climate systems and atmospheric physics their whole professional lives are still discovering new details, but you are sure you have it all figured out. LOLOL.

2014 was the hottest year on record, surpassing 2010 and 2005 for that rank. 2015, so far, is even hotter, much hotter it turns out. Scientists are saying that 2016 will be as hot or hotter. Almost every month this year so far has been the record setting hottest month of that name on record. January was the second hottest January and April was the third hottest April. The first ten months of 2015 were the warmest such period on record across the world's land and ocean surfaces, according to NOAA. By the end of this year, the three hottest years on record - 2015, 2014, and 2010 - will have happened in the last five years. That's a record too.

The Earth is heating up because of the 43% increase of the heat trapping Greenhouse Gas carbon dioxide in our atmosphere that mankind's activities has produced. Virtually the entire world scientific community strongly affirms this.

But meanwhile, as part of the complexity of the world climate systems, this is also possibly happening...

*Climate Change and the United Kingdom (UK)*
EnvironmentWatch
*There are two scenarios for the UK as a result of global warming. It could get warmer or the climate could even become cooler.*

*A Warmer Climate for the UK*
*Bird Migration Patterns*
*Studies by the British Trust for Ornithology (BTO) and the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust between 2001 and 2004 indicate that the British winter climate is warming.*

*Ducks, geese and waders are attracted by the relatively warmer winter conditions in the British Isles but, claims the BTO, global warming could be persuading migrating birds to stay in cooler northern and eastern waters. The British Isles benefits from the warn Gulf Stream which keeps the British Isles warmer in winter than would be expected for land at such a northerly latitude.*

*It is thought that global warming is keeping the birds breeding grounds warm enough in winter to negate the necessity for the birds to migrate to warmer climates.*

*Predictions by the Climate Research Unit (University of East Anglia) in 2000*
*In 2000 the Climate Research Unit predicted that by 2050 average temperatures in the south east of the British Isles would increase by 1.5°C to 2°C with the west and north of Ireland and Scotland rising by 1.5°C to 2°C. By 2080 the predicted temperature rises are: *

*more than 3°C for the south and midland areas of England and most of Wales*
*between 2.5°C and 3°C for Ireland, Cornwall, west Wales, northern England and most of Scotland*
*between 2.0°C and 2.5°C for the northern tip of Scotland*
*Winter precipitation (rainfall and snow) is also expected to increase. The increased precipitation will not be even over the British Isles. By 2080 it is expected that the south east corner of England will see a 5%-10% increase in precipitation; all of Wales and England below Manchester and Leeds will see a 10%-20% increase in precipitation; Ireland, Scotland and the north of England will see over 20% increase in precipitation. Although winter precipitation is expected to increase, summer precipitation is expected to be reduced in many areas with a predictions of 18% less summer rainfall for central and southern UK by 2080. On the other hand, northern England and Scotland are expected to have both wetter summers and wetter winters.*

*Report by the Scotish Executive in 2006*
*The Scotish Executive issued a report in March 2006 called Changing Our Ways: Scotland's Climate Change Programmewhich includes predictions for the climate of the UK due to global warming. Much of its conclusions are broadly in line with the predictions by the Climate Research Unit in 2000. However the Scotish Executive reports does indicate that precipitation in the south and east of the UK could deline by up to 50% in the summer by 2080.*


*A Cooler Climate for the UK
The reason why global warming is likelier to cause localised cooling of the UK is to do with the Gulf Stream.

At present, there is a warm current that starts in the Gulf of Mexico that transports warm tropical water from the Gulf of Mexico into the North Atlantic. Technically, at this point the current changes its name from the Gulf Stream to the North Atlantic Drift. The North Atlantic Drift continues to transport this warm water to the shores of Ireland, South West England, Scotland and a small part of Wales. The air above this warm current takes some of the heat from the water and takes this warm air across the British Isles. In winter, this keeps the British Isles warmer than would be expected for it northerly latitude. 

As global warming continues, it is expected that Arctic ice will melt releasing huge quantities of fresh water into the North Atlantic. Not only will this ice melt increase sea level, it will have a dramatic effect on the North Atlantic Drift. 

Salt water is more dense than fresh water. This is the key to the effect of the ice melt will have on the North Atlantic Drift. 

As more fresh water is released in the North Atlantic, it will flow south to meet the North Atlantic Drift. Where they meet, the heavier salt water of the North Atlantic Drift will start to descend beneath the lighter fresh water from the Arctic. As soon as the warm salt water sinks beneath the cooler fresh water, the warming effect of the North Atlantic Drift will cease. As the air will also cool, the beneficial effect of the North Atlantic Drift will end. This will result in winters in the British Isles being about 9°C cooler then present. Winter temperatures in the British Isles will be more akin to those found in Labrador. 

Although global warming will see much of the Earth with higher temperatures, for some place, especially the British Isles, the average temperature could fall. Thus, it is more appropriate to talk about climate change rather then global warming. 

Will the Gulf Stream collapse?
A key question in climate research concerns the stability of the thermohaline circulation, a system of large-scale currents including the Gulf Stream in the North Atlantic Ocean, which carries heat from the tropics to higher latitudes as cold salty water sinks near the pole, drawing warm water north-eastwards. The arm of the Gulf Stream which flows up the west coast of Scotland (the North Atlantic Drift) is responsible for keeping our climate temperate.

Recent observations have shown a reduction in the amount of salt in the sea water deep in the north-west Atlantic, and this has been interpreted by some as an early sign of a weakening thermohaline circulation.

The climate model run by the Hadley Centre - part of the Met Office - shows that the observations are, in fact, consistent with a slight strengthening of the thermohaline circulation since the 1960s. Nevertheless, the model predicts that in future it will weaken somewhat as a result of global warming.

Hadley Centre models suggest a reduction in the strength of the Gulf Stream by as much as a quarter, but not a collapse. However, even with this reduction in the Gulf Stream, the net result of climate change is expected to be a warmer Europe. *


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 17, 2015)

martybegan said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Not at all. They don't have enough knowledge of science to be heretics, they are just stupid asses posting nonsense, like you.
> ...


Stupid fucks, every one of you that deny reality.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Nov 18, 2015)

Back 10,000 years ago, the Earth warmed causing the glaciers to recede giving us the Great Lakes of the USA and thousand lakes of Canada.  Back then mankind was miniscule in number.  What caused that global warming?  Before humans took over California and built the canals that would bring water from northern Cal to the south, the whole area from San Diego to Los Angeles was a BIG desert.  When the liberals of California cut off the water to the south, so they could protect the Smelt Fish, soon S. Cal reverted back to its original condition.  Problem with you libtards is that you are TOO stupid to research this, and just continue to be a goosestepping, koolaid drinking, low information, mindnumbed, useful idiot, willingly giving up your money so Al Gore, Warren Buffet, Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, can rake in the millions and billions from the Carbon Credit Exchange.   Where is this COLD coming from if the Arctic Ocean and the planet are warming up year after year?  Such stupid people who vote dumbocrat.   Colorado Blizzard


> Colorado Blizzard


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 18, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Remember, denier is an AGWCult secret handshake word and not used by real scientists


----------



## gipper (Nov 18, 2015)

How could anyone believe AGW is real, when it is clearly a hoax.

A hoax designed to centralize government worldwide and enrich and empower politicians, the 1%, and the connected.  Only fools are incapable of seeing the truth.  

One would think when every big gov pol in the whole F-ing world is an advocate of AGW, the believers would wake up to the hoax....but no. 

Can't fix stupid.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 18, 2015)

gipper said:


> How could anyone believe AGW is real, when it is clearly a hoax.
> 
> A hoax designed to centralize government worldwide and enrich and empower politicians, the 1%, and the connected.  Only fools are incapable of seeing the truth.
> 
> ...


IPCC flat out said they're using AGW as a wealth redistribution scheme


----------



## gipper (Nov 18, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > How could anyone believe AGW is real, when it is clearly a hoax.
> ...


That should tip off the believers, but no...their faith is strong.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Nov 18, 2015)

Weatherman2020 said:


> ● “El Nino could make 2015 ‘the hottest year on record’… and 2016 will be even hotter.”
> —Headline, London _Independent,_ September 14, 2015.
> 
> 
> ...




If Big Oil gave me hundreds of thousands I'd deny the world's round. 

"Do you believe in the Loch Ness Monster, astral projection, Bigfoot, ghosts and spirits, or the lost city of Atlantis?"

"If there's a steady paycheck in it, I'll believe anything you say."

- "Ghostbusters"


----------



## martybegan (Nov 18, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



I'll put my IQ up against yours any day of the week.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 18, 2015)

martybegan said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


Stupid is as stupid does, Marty, me boy. So you are claiming that millions of scientists around the world, from every culture and poltical system are in on a grand conspiracy. So perfectly aligned in their nefarious goals that not one of them has divulged what the purpose of the conspiracy is, and who is spearheading it.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 18, 2015)

andaronjim said:


> Back 10,000 years ago, the Earth warmed causing the glaciers to recede giving us the Great Lakes of the USA and thousand lakes of Canada.  Back then mankind was miniscule in number.  What caused that global warming?  Before humans took over California and built the canals that would bring water from northern Cal to the south, the whole area from San Diego to Los Angeles was a BIG desert.  When the liberals of California cut off the water to the south, so they could protect the Smelt Fish, soon S. Cal reverted back to its original condition.  Problem with you libtards is that you are TOO stupid to research this, and just continue to be a goosestepping, koolaid drinking, low information, mindnumbed, useful idiot, willingly giving up your money so Al Gore, Warren Buffet, Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, can rake in the millions and billions from the Carbon Credit Exchange.   Where is this COLD coming from if the Arctic Ocean and the planet are warming up year after year?  Such stupid people who vote dumbocrat.   Colorado Blizzard
> 
> 
> > Colorado Blizzard


Imagine that. A blizzard in Colorado in the second half of November. Ever hear of winter, goober?


----------



## ClosedCaption (Nov 18, 2015)

Theres a couple of ways to deny it:

1. Lie about it
2. Lie about Scientist
3. Lie about the evidence
4. When all else fails claim its a conspiracy that only the smartest people are able to see to add to ego


----------



## martybegan (Nov 18, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



There is no need for a conspiracy. the scientists provide information, and the Statists in power use it to get more power. 

And I noticed you didn't really reply to my challenge, oxygen thief.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Nov 18, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > Back 10,000 years ago, the Earth warmed causing the glaciers to recede giving us the Great Lakes of the USA and thousand lakes of Canada.  Back then mankind was miniscule in number.  What caused that global warming?  Before humans took over California and built the canals that would bring water from northern Cal to the south, the whole area from San Diego to Los Angeles was a BIG desert.  When the liberals of California cut off the water to the south, so they could protect the Smelt Fish, soon S. Cal reverted back to its original condition.  Problem with you libtards is that you are TOO stupid to research this, and just continue to be a goosestepping, koolaid drinking, low information, mindnumbed, useful idiot, willingly giving up your money so Al Gore, Warren Buffet, Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, can rake in the millions and billions from the Carbon Credit Exchange.   Where is this COLD coming from if the Arctic Ocean and the planet are warming up year after year?  Such stupid people who vote dumbocrat.   Colorado Blizzard
> ...


Yeah, but where is the cold coming from if the planet is warming up year after year.  I mean 2015 was hottest on record, wouldn't that stop winter from coming?  Hot air stops cold air, doesn't it?  If you have a house with a thermostat in it, when you raise the temperature of that house thermostat by 5 degrees, wont the rest of the house warm up also?  You do realize that is science that is just showed you?  Did you know that Winter Solstace isn't supposed to be until Dec 22nd and that we are still in FALL?  Hmmm, dipshits walk goosestepping, drink the liberal koolaid, are low information, mindnumbed, useful idiots, who believe what ever comes out of the RAINBOW House.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Nov 18, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


There are not even millions of climate scientists, let alone believers of the man can control the weather religion.

Guess you never heard how this 99% of scientist statistic came up. She surveyed a few thousand around the world, didn't get the answer she liked, so she cherry picked a few in America and used that small cherry picked statistic.

It's about lies and the puppets who dance to them.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Nov 18, 2015)

Funny how the terms get changed when NATURE doesn't play the GW game.  Warm winter ahead? Polar vortex says maybe not


> The Northern Hemisphere may be subject to more cold outbreaks than usual come January thanks to the polar vortex.
> 
> "Polar vortex" became a household phrase in North America during the bitterly cold winter of 2013-2014, but this phenomenon has always existed and can also impact both Europe and Asia.


 Back when I was young, we had a snowfall that completely covered our sliding glass door.  We had to dig out of it which was fun for kids.  Today, with liberals and their "*I HATE EVERYTHING*" mentality, kids cant have fun, because somewhere in the world, other kids cant have fun.  So they FORCE upon us their taxes which pads their wallet, but takes away from hard working families who not only have to pay higher food bills, but higher energy costs also.  Now 1 in 5 kids go to bed hungry.*

* How can 1 in 5 kids go to bed hungry, when a liberal president is in power?  Don't kids get free breakfasts and lunches just by going to public education?  Compared to other counties like Ethiopia and Congo, American kids have never gone *HUNGRY*.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Nov 18, 2015)

Weatherman2020 said:


> ● “El Nino could make 2015 ‘the hottest year on record’… and 2016 will be even hotter.”
> —Headline, London _Independent,_ September 14, 2015.
> 
> 
> ...



None of these things prove climate change is the result of the actions of human beings.


----------



## westwall (Nov 18, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Heat wave - The Watchers
> 
> *Warm and dry conditions to continue across the US West*
> Unusually warm and dry weather has been persistent across the US West during October 2015. A number of temperature records have already been broken, and hot conditions are expected to continue throughout the week, increasing the risk of wildfires in already devastated a
> ...










Still confusing weather with climate I see.  When are you ever going to learn!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 18, 2015)

ClosedCaption said:


> Theres a couple of ways to deny it:
> 
> 1. Lie about it
> 2. Lie about Scientist
> ...



IPCC admitted climate change was just a wealth redistribution scheme, why won't you believe them?


----------



## ClosedCaption (Nov 18, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > Theres a couple of ways to deny it:
> ...



I already know from your reputation that thats a lie


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Nov 18, 2015)

RollingThunder said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > ● “El Nino could make 2015 ‘the hottest year on record’… and 2016 will be even hotter.”
> ...


Call me when crocodiles return to Alaska.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 18, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > Back 10,000 years ago, the Earth warmed causing the glaciers to recede giving us the Great Lakes of the USA and thousand lakes of Canada.  Back then mankind was miniscule in number.  What caused that global warming?  Before humans took over California and built the canals that would bring water from northern Cal to the south, the whole area from San Diego to Los Angeles was a BIG desert.  When the liberals of California cut off the water to the south, so they could protect the Smelt Fish, soon S. Cal reverted back to its original condition.  Problem with you libtards is that you are TOO stupid to research this, and just continue to be a goosestepping, koolaid drinking, low information, mindnumbed, useful idiot, willingly giving up your money so Al Gore, Warren Buffet, Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, can rake in the millions and billions from the Carbon Credit Exchange.   Where is this COLD coming from if the Arctic Ocean and the planet are warming up year after year?  Such stupid people who vote dumbocrat.   Colorado Blizzard
> ...



Ever hear of manmade climate global warming change?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 18, 2015)

ClosedCaption said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...



Clearly, you don't know dick


----------



## ClosedCaption (Nov 18, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...




I do, and its you


----------



## ChrisL (Nov 18, 2015)

If there is manmade global warming, a few carbon credits aren't going to change anything!  That's MY problem with the whole thing.  That is just so . . . stupid.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 18, 2015)

ClosedCaption said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...



If I post IPCC admitting that climate change is to redistribute wealth will you promise me you'll beg Stats for a new avatar?


----------



## ChrisL (Nov 18, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Does he even post here anymore?  I haven't seen Stat around in ages.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 18, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...



Haven't seen him in months, that's why Progressive have had the same avatars. As soon as he returns you'll see some new ones


----------



## jc456 (Nov 18, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


so, I'm still curious why what we think bothers you so?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 18, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > How could anyone believe AGW is real, when it is clearly a hoax.
> ...


^this^


----------



## jc456 (Nov 18, 2015)

gipper said:


> How could anyone believe AGW is real, when it is clearly a hoax.
> 
> A hoax designed to centralize government worldwide and enrich and empower politicians, the 1%, and the connected.  Only fools are incapable of seeing the truth.
> 
> ...


What's funny to me is how the difference is split.  No one funded/ paid by the governments believes it is a hoax and everyone not paid by the governments do!  Doesn't that just ring loud and clear it's a hoax?  I'm just saying.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 18, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > ● “El Nino could make 2015 ‘the hottest year on record’… and 2016 will be even hotter.”
> ...


how much does big oil spend vs the governments for their grants?  Let's see that scale bubba.  you want a post up political bull shit, post your evidence.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 18, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...


there you go projecting....  one m i l l i o n......and yet you got squat as evidence.  so shut up.  if that is indeed so, let's see your link to the names.  you pulled that number from somewhere right?  Denier.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Nov 18, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> If there is manmade global warming, a few carbon credits aren't going to change anything!  That's MY problem with the whole thing.  That is just so . . . stupid.



Of course a few isnt going to change anything...Of course thats stupid


----------



## jc456 (Nov 18, 2015)

ClosedCaption said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > If there is manmade global warming, a few carbon credits aren't going to change anything!  That's MY problem with the whole thing.  That is just so . . . stupid.
> ...


what is a lot of carbon credits going to do?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 18, 2015)

jc456 said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



Besides enrich Goldman Sachs and Al Gore? And damage our economy?


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 18, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Heat wave - The Watchers
> 
> *Warm and dry conditions to continue across the US West*
> Unusually warm and dry weather has been persistent across the US West during October 2015. A number of temperature records have already been broken, and hot conditions are expected to continue throughout the week, increasing the risk of wildfires in already devastated a
> ...



Another excellent OldieRocks weather report !!! THanks man.. The Weather Channel better watch out..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 18, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Just more of the same old bull shit lies, deceptions, and the all important appeal to authority when those he wants you to appeal to are idiots, thieves, Socialists OWG  and liars.

I have posted the data and the graphing showing the rate of warming can be fully attributed to natural variation. You have yet to post anything which disproves the empirical evidence and observation.

You think telling the same lies over and over will make the facts go away?


----------



## ChrisL (Nov 19, 2015)

ClosedCaption said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > If there is manmade global warming, a few carbon credits aren't going to change anything!  That's MY problem with the whole thing.  That is just so . . . stupid.
> ...



How do you think carbon credits would help anything?  It's all a scam.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Nov 19, 2015)

I don't deny that human pollution can effect climate I just don't think the earth being a couple degrees warmer will be the biblical catastrophe you people say it will


----------



## ChrisL (Nov 19, 2015)

Living in NE, I welcome a few degrees warmer temperatures.    Go global warming, go!


----------



## ClosedCaption (Nov 19, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



It wont by itself but thats hardly a reason to say that the planet warming is all a scam because of carbon credits.  Its like saying wrestling isnt effective because the WWE is fake.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 19, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelions of scientist agree about manmade global climate warming change


----------



## jc456 (Nov 19, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


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


how about  trrrrrrrrrrrrillions or baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaazinllion, why not just say consensus?  hahahahaahahaha, love it Frank, I love it.  The over exaggeration out the butt from these fks.

And they have never actually posted what it is is denied, accept for them and the actual earth temperatures.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 19, 2015)

jc456 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



They don't care that they're lying, it's textbook pathological


----------



## jc456 (Nov 19, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


it's what happens when one is raised to not have integrity.  That one posts up a thread about denying like this OP.  The hypocrite denies the earth and hates humans.


----------



## flacaltenn (Nov 19, 2015)

ClosedCaption said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...



Unless maybe you have examples of folks who are the LARGEST cheerleaders for GW and have stuffed their portfolios with a whole lot of stuff that involve Carbon Credits. You know of any off-hand?


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Nov 19, 2015)

Blood And Gore: Making A Killing On Anti-Carbon Investment Hype


> Gore and Blood, the former chief of Goldman Sachs Asset Management (GSAM), co-founded London-based GIM in 2004. Between 2008 and 2011 the company had raised profits of nearly $218 million from institutions and wealthy investors. By 2008 Gore was able to put $35 million into hedge funds and private partnerships through the Capricorn Investment Group, a Palo Alto company founded by his Canadian billionaire buddy Jeffrey Skoll, the first president of EBay Inc. It was Skoll’s _Participant Media_ that produced Gore’s feverishly frightening 2006 horror film, _“An Inconvenient Truth”. _


_ Wonder why Obama, Hillary, Al Gore, Goldman Sachs and others still push carbon trading when the global warming hoax has been so thoroughly discredited? Follow the money...They will all make billions.



			Wonder why Obama, Hillary, Al Gore, Goldman Sachs and others still push carbon trading when the global warming hoax has been so thoroughly discredited? Follow the money…They will all make billions.
		
Click to expand...

 _Normal businesses make money by producing goods or services that PEOPLE want.  But to a lazy ass liberals(redundant statement I know) it is easier to have the government STEAL money from normal folks, and then distribute that wealth to those very liberals who RULE in the government.  Just follow the money, listen to the religious zelots and you know who is in the exchange.


----------



## IsaacNewton (Nov 19, 2015)

Two types generally.

- Deny it because you are making money off of burning fossil fuels.

- Deny it because you are terrified and dropped a load in your pants and facing reality is just too hard.


----------



## ChrisL (Nov 19, 2015)

ClosedCaption said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...



It won't do anything at all.  Lol.  It is a money making scheme, and people have made money off it too, PLENTY.  Just google it and check for yourself.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 19, 2015)

IsaacNewton said:


> Two types generally.
> 
> - Deny it because you are making money off of burning fossil fuels.
> 
> - Deny it because you are terrified and dropped a load in your pants and facing reality is just too hard.



*Deny it because you are making money off of burning fossil fuels.
*
The key to our high tech civilization has been cheap energy.
Those economies where they burn wood and animal dung for fuel aren't very healthy for their citizens.
You're free to give it a try,  most prefer the fossil fuel choice.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Nov 19, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...




Maybe Carbon Credits are a money making scheme but again, that has nothing to do with whether or not climate change is real.  For example, there are sociopaths that can pass a lie detector.  Does that mean that lie detectors are bullshit?  No.


----------



## ChrisL (Nov 19, 2015)

ClosedCaption said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...



Well, when the rest of the world wants to cooperate, you let me know.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Nov 19, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...




They do, what should you be let known.  Just be better to the planet.  Pretty simple and the reward is...a cleaner planet.  I know, I know...big deal, but it really is.


----------



## ChrisL (Nov 19, 2015)

ClosedCaption said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...



Um, no they don't.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Nov 19, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...




So no matter what anyone says you're going to say you know their real thoughts?  That old schtick?


Awesome talking to you.


----------



## Vigilante (Nov 19, 2015)

Real easy to deny it....LOGIC...it fails them!...But MONEY, on the other hand....


----------



## ChrisL (Nov 19, 2015)

ClosedCaption said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...



The rest of the world is not cooperating is what I'm saying.  Not with the carbon credits scheme anyway.  A lot of the largest economic growing nations, such as China and India, are not cooperating with these ideas, nor do they plan on doing so as far as I know.  It is business as usual for them, and they are just a couple of the biggest polluters.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Nov 19, 2015)

Weatherman2020 said:


> ● “El Nino could make 2015 ‘the hottest year on record’… and 2016 will be even hotter.”
> —Headline, London _Independent,_ September 14, 2015.
> 
> 
> ...



But a guy with a blog said something about some emails.

So its obviously all a lie.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Nov 20, 2015)

ClosedCaption said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...


Oh climate change is real, I am not denying it, but climate has been changing since the Earth was formed.  Shame liberals are too stupid to realize this, and are willingly dumb enough to part with their money.  Why did the Earth warm 10,000 years ago, when there wasn't any industrial revolution and man was very few?


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 20, 2015)

andaronjim said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...




some people are just more easily duped than others..........

Global Warming? | About The Sky


The WWE is actually an excellent analogy.........there are lots of folks out there that truly believe that stuff is genuine!!! What can you do?


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Nov 20, 2015)

skookerasbil said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...


The WWE is real, there are guys and gals, throwing each other around, getting paid to perform.  But once again, it is about the money, which is why they are entertainers, those who make the money from carbon, are THEIVES.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Nov 20, 2015)

andaronjim said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



You guys seem to like to ignore science make brave statements like "the earth has always been changing" and at the end it all comes money and how you can have more of it and the earth being clean....meh, how much again?

Like the earth is an iffy investment lol


----------



## ClosedCaption (Nov 20, 2015)

andaronjim said:


> The WWE is real



Welp, I know when someone is either trolling or too stupid to have this conversation.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Nov 20, 2015)

ClosedCaption said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...


Why are you using fossil fuels?  Get off the internet and save Mother Gia.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Nov 20, 2015)

Weatherman2020 said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > andaronjim said:
> ...



Because its widely available silly.  That also isnt a reason to deny climate change. Sorry


----------



## jc456 (Nov 20, 2015)

ClosedCaption said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...


sure it does, it's been asked by myself and others for you to provide a solution to your supposed problem.  To date, the only response is this carbon credits.  So it you agree that that doesn't qualify as a solution, what is your solution.  The burden is on you since you believe. Me I don't know how to fix what isn't real.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 20, 2015)

andaronjim said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


shame liberals do realize it, and they wish to profit from it from gullible folks who have no idea what's actually happening.  It is their life blood.  They are junkies for this type of scenario.  It's why they keep the black population in squalor.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Nov 20, 2015)

jc456 said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



False there is more solutions than Carbon Credits unless you never heard of green energy.  Theres no burden on me.  I know its real, like flash floods.  But just because I dont know how to stop them doesnt mean flash floods dont exist.   I'm just a guy on the internet.

You should ask scientists.

Oh thats right, you dont trust them either.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 20, 2015)

ClosedCaption said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...


Dude, I don't know where to begin with a response to your post.  I'm laughing so flippin hard.  Let's see, let's start with green energy.  What are your successes for the use of green energy, what is the actual add to the power grid?

Who is actually making any money from it?  See all I've heard about are the failures, Solydra come to mind?

How about the desert solar fields?  Are they actually providing power for california?  What about 5%?

You claim that humans can control the climate, therefore your burden is telling me who doesn't, what you'd do to stop the humans from contributing to it outside the extinction of man. This is truly a kick for me.

Flash floods, dude, that is the most stupid statement of all.  You act as if the planet never ever had flash floods before. It's this one that has me rolling on the floor laughing.  Ever hear of Noah?  I know that was a big flash flood right? How long ago was that btw?


----------



## ClosedCaption (Nov 20, 2015)

jc456 said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Ok, now that the obligatory laughing and name calling is out the way.  It seems you have questions young man, the internet is a wealth of information.  Try typing your question into google.



> Who is actually making any money from it?  See all I've heard about are the failures, Solydra come to mind?



Is someone supposed to be building and creating a service for free now?  When was that a requirement?



> How about the desert solar fields?  Are they actually providing power for california?  What about 5%?



Maybe, but if you put it in google you'd have a clearer idea instead of musing without proof.



> You claim that humans can control the climate, therefore your burden is telling me who doesn't, what you'd do to stop the humans from contributing to it outside the extinction of man. This is truly a kick for me.



That should be a kick since no one, including me has ever ever claimed "humans can control the climate".  Thats a hoot!  



> Flash floods, dude, that is the most stupid statement of all.  You act as if the planet never ever had flash floods before. It's this one that has me rolling on the floor laughing.  Ever hear of Noah?  I know that was a big flash flood right? How long ago was that btw?



Not sure about that but you got lost in the analogy.  I said I know that flash floods exist and no matter if I know how to stop it or not doesnt determine if they are real or not. Concentrate.


----------



## skookerasbil (Nov 20, 2015)

ClosedCaption said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...




s0n......you have no real responsibilities in life......like most of the climate crusader k00ks. The whole reason nobody is caring about the science is exactly because of the financial burdens that correspond with they nutty-ass alarmists solutions..........and anyway, carbon credit schemes are exactly tied to green energy you fucking dolt.
Cap and Trade was designed to push wind and solar on the public...........duh...........

Billy......we seem to have a new member trolling in the ENVIRONMENT forum. And this one is particularly stoopid..............


I gotta say...........Old Rocks.....Crick.......Mamooth..........Mathew..........all the old reliable group in here. Maybe the thought processing is a bit off.......but a bright bunch of people we debate.

This guys is a dumb as a stump.


----------



## ClosedCaption (Nov 20, 2015)

skookerasbil said:


> s0n......*you have no real responsibilities in life*......like most of the *climate crusader k00ks*. The whole reason nobody is caring about the science is exactly because of the financial burdens that correspond with they *nutty-ass alarmists solutions*..........and anyway, carbon credit schemes are exactly tied to green energy you fucking dolt.
> Cap and Trade was designed to push wind and solar on the public...........*duh.*..........
> 
> Billy......we seem to have a new member trolling in the ENVIRONMENT forum. And *this one is particularly stoopid.*.............



Oh, this is a debate?




> I gotta say...........Old Rocks.....Crick.......Mamooth..........Mathew..........all the old reliable group in here. *Maybe the thought processing is a bit off.......but a bright bunch of people we debate.*
> 
> This guys is a dumb as a stump



You think what you just did was thinking?  Or debating?  Anything?

Not surprised


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Nov 24, 2015)

ClosedCaption said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > s0n......*you have no real responsibilities in life*......like most of the *climate crusader k00ks*. The whole reason nobody is caring about the science is exactly because of the financial burdens that correspond with they *nutty-ass alarmists solutions*..........and anyway, carbon credit schemes are exactly tied to green energy you fucking dolt.
> ...


Obama calls global warming a ‘fact,’ ignores flat temps


> During the State of the Union, President Barack Obama stated that global warming is a “fact” and that the science was settled. But Obama’s remarks ignore the fact that global temperatures have not significantly risen in 17 years.


 When Coal fired power plants were producing electrical energy at 3 cents a watt, there was no way solar or wind(old technology that isn't green) could compete.  But when you start closing down these cheap energy producers, soon peoples costs go up, making unaffordable ungreen energy(wind and solar) better looking.  So dumbass liberals still blame the power plants for higher energy costs, and not the real ENEMY of the country.  Liberals are the dumbest people on the planet.


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 24, 2015)

Growth in residential electricity prices highest in 6 years, but expected to slow in 2015 - Today in Energy - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Residential electricity rate increases during 2014 ranged from 1.3% in the Pacific Coast states to 9.9% in New England. Retail electricity prices have risen for various reasons. Many electric utilities purchase their power from regional wholesale electricity markets, which, at a national level, experienced higher prices last year. Other reasons commonly cited for higher retail electricity prices are the increased investment in transmission and distribution infrastructure, rising requirements to generate electricity from renewable energy sources, and utility investment in demand-side efficiency.
Despite recent increases, retail electricity prices have historically risen at a lower rate than the general rate of inflation, and the real price of electricity is lower than it was prior to 1995. Measured in constant 2014 dollars, the U.S. residential electricity price averaged 12.5 cents per kilowatthour in 2014, up slightly from its lowest point (in real terms) of 11.1 cents per kilowatthour in 2002.





graph of U.S. residential electricity price, as explained in the article text
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy Review

The electricity industry likely will continue to invest in upgrades to transmission and distribution systems in the coming years as well as expand renewable generating capacity, the costs of which will be passed through to retail customers. Costs associated with environmental compliance also will affect future retail electricity rates.
However, power generation fuel costs have fallen in recent months, especially the cost of natural gas. These lower costs are likely to offset some of the increases in utilities' nonfuel costs and thus slow the rate of retail electricity price increases. EIA's March edition of the Short-Term Energy Outlook projects residential electricity prices will rise by 1.0% during 2015, which would be the lowest increase since 2010.

*So, actually, even though we are adding capacity in renewables, the price is close to flat lining, and may be going down a bit in real terms. Of course, as people add more and more gadgets to their homes, the amount they pay will go up.*


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Nov 24, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Growth in residential electricity prices highest in 6 years, but expected to slow in 2015 - Today in Energy - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
> 
> Residential electricity rate increases during 2014 ranged from 1.3% in the Pacific Coast states to 9.9% in New England. Retail electricity prices have risen for various reasons. Many electric utilities purchase their power from regional wholesale electricity markets, which, at a national level, experienced higher prices last year. Other reasons commonly cited for higher retail electricity prices are the increased investment in transmission and distribution infrastructure, rising requirements to generate electricity from renewable energy sources, and utility investment in demand-side efficiency.
> Despite recent increases, retail electricity prices have historically risen at a lower rate than the general rate of inflation, and the real price of electricity is lower than it was prior to 1995. Measured in constant 2014 dollars, the U.S. residential electricity price averaged 12.5 cents per kilowatthour in 2014, up slightly from its lowest point (in real terms) of 11.1 cents per kilowatthour in 2002.
> ...


No shit, when you drive out cheap energy, and the price must necessarily skyrocket, once you get to the top costs, of course it will slow down.  Nice try, playing on words, as typical of a liberal, but not only has Obama warred on coal plants, but those who dug it out of the ground, and had a pretty good life.  CO2 has been the reason for plants to be green, when there is less CO2 in the air, there are less plants.  Why are liberals against GREEN plants and trees?


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 24, 2015)

Well, well, another 'Conservative' that cannot read a simple chart. The chart displays cost in real dollars versus inflated dollars. The price for the electricity has come way down in my lifetime, compared to what we earn. If you cannot see that, you are a blind fool. Given you are a 'Conservative', that can be assumed in any case.


----------



## Dan Daly (Nov 24, 2015)

It's obvious to anyone who has paid attention for even a few decades that humans have been and continue to fk up the planet.

But that does mean that the solutions proposed by the Religion of Global Warming are acceptable or even sane.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Nov 24, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Well, well, another 'Conservative' that cannot read a simple chart. The chart displays cost in real dollars versus inflated dollars. The price for the electricity has come way down in my lifetime, compared to what we earn. If you cannot see that, you are a blind fool. Given you are a 'Conservative', that can be assumed in any case.


As typical of a dumbass liberal(redundant statement) what part of this link don't you get?  Growth in residential electricity prices highest in 6 years, but expected to slow in 2015 - Today in Energy - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) 
HIGHEST IN 6 YEARS.  Problem with you libtards, you are so brainwashed, that you cant say anything bad about Der Fuhrer.


----------



## ChrisL (Nov 24, 2015)

Dan Daly said:


> It's obvious to anyone who has paid attention for even a few decades that humans have been and continue to fk up the planet.
> 
> But that does mean that the solutions proposed by the Religion of Global Warming are acceptable or even sane.



The fearmongering is what is amusing to me.  Look at Al Gore, he cried that the oceans would rise and blah, blah, blah, and what does he go and do?  Buys a huge mansion on the coast.    A guy who flies around the world in his private jet, probably travels with a brigade of SUVs . . . good grief.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Nov 24, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Growth in residential electricity prices highest in 6 years, but expected to slow in 2015 - Today in Energy - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
> 
> Residential electricity rate increases during 2014 ranged from 1.3% in the Pacific Coast states to 9.9% in New England. Retail electricity prices have risen for various reasons. Many electric utilities purchase their power from regional wholesale electricity markets, which, at a national level, experienced higher prices last year. Other reasons commonly cited for higher retail electricity prices are the increased investment in transmission and distribution infrastructure, rising requirements to generate electricity from renewable energy sources, and utility investment in demand-side efficiency.
> Despite recent increases, retail electricity prices have historically risen at a lower rate than the general rate of inflation, and the real price of electricity is lower than it was prior to 1995. Measured in constant 2014 dollars, the U.S. residential electricity price averaged 12.5 cents per kilowatthour in 2014, up slightly from its lowest point (in real terms) of 11.1 cents per kilowatthour in 2002.
> ...



*Despite recent increases, retail electricity prices have historically risen at a lower rate than the general rate of inflation, and the real price of electricity is lower than it was prior to 1995.
*
Yes, fracking, despite Obama, has helped reduce electricity prices.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 24, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Well, well, another 'Conservative' that cannot read a simple chart. The chart displays cost in real dollars versus inflated dollars. The price for the electricity has come way down in my lifetime, compared to what we earn. If you cannot see that, you are a blind fool. Given you are a 'Conservative', that can be assumed in any case.


so you are agreeing that the costs have gone up on the poor.  Nice job, I knew eventually you'd have to see that.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Dec 4, 2015)

Italy's Etna in most dramatic eruption in 20 years


> Fire and hot ash spewed high into the sky from Italy's Mount Etna in Sicily Friday, in one of the most dramatic eruptions of Europe's highest active volcano in the past 20 years.


 Maybe the climate change alarmists will go to the mountain and demand carbon credits from it to continue spewing CO2 into the atmosphere.  Or better yet, those alarmist will throw themselves into the volcano and sacrifice themselves for the good of the world, by reducing their CO2 footprint and save the planet?  Nah, they are too chicken shit to sacrifice themselves for the greater good, but they would throw you in, in a NY minute.


----------



## Crick (Dec 4, 2015)

Throwing themselves into the volcano would do nothing.  All the CO2 that humans exhale comes from the atmosphere.  The carbon in the food we eat comes from the atmosphere breathed by the animals and plants we eat.  We do not eat coal or drink petroleum.  

But I appreciate  knowing that you think death threats are a viable option here on the discussion board.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Jan 5, 2016)

ClosedCaption said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...


The only ones not believing in Climate Change are those who hate GREEN TREES.  Because you libtards want to get rid of CO2, then where will the grasses and trees get that life giving product from?  The Earth has been in CLIMATE CHANGE since it has been created, but you tards THINK(I know liberals cant think, they just regurgitate what come from the rainbow house) that since the CO2 went from .03%(three hundredths of 1 percent) to .04%(four hundredths of 1 percent) that EVIL man must of caused it.  But Mother Nature just inst playing along time after time.  When ever tards of libs start spewing the Earth is warming the Earth is warming, God intervenes once again.   Polar Vortex 2016: Will A Frozen Niagara Falls Freeze Over With Ice And Snow This Winter? [Photos/Video]


> The 2016 polar vortex is upon us, and winter is coming (just not from George R.R. Martin). The polar vortex, or an arctic cyclone as they’re also known, is essentially a hurricane-like storm that hovers over the North Pole of the Earth


 If the North Pole is melting where does the polar vortex come from?  Liberals are dumbasses.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 5, 2016)

andaronjim said:


> ClosedCaption said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


it comes up from the south.  Seems everything is driven from the south including cold.  The antarctic must get some good winds blowing.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jan 5, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



There is the case of the three member cells of the NVA and VC.

The main feature is that anyone who might dissent would have a hard time convincing two comrades to join in.  So they watched each other and ratted out those who lost the faith.

It is quite clear that the scientific community is in the same boat.

When it is suggested that denier scientists be tried.........


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jan 5, 2016)

ChrisL said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...



No great loss.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 6, 2016)

Crick said:


> Throwing themselves into the volcano would do nothing.  All the CO2 that humans exhale comes from the atmosphere.  The carbon in the food we eat comes from the atmosphere breathed by the animals and plants we eat.  We do not eat coal or drink petroleum.
> 
> But I appreciate  knowing that you think death threats are a viable option here on the discussion board.



*We do not eat coal or drink petroleum.* 

I just had some Sweet 'N Low in my coffee.


----------



## sealybobo (Jan 7, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> ● “El Nino could make 2015 ‘the hottest year on record’… and 2016 will be even hotter.”
> —Headline, London _Independent,_ September 14, 2015.
> 
> 
> ...


I just heard the recent earthquakes are because of fracking


----------



## Dovahkiin (Jan 7, 2016)

Globally, the majority of people and scientists accept climate change, with man having a large influence. This is supported with vast amounts of evidence and upheld by governments worldwide. Climate change denialism appears to be a problem only present in America. It's not worth debating individuals who believe they know more then the world governments and scientists on an Internet forum. It gets nowhere.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 7, 2016)

Dovahkiin said:


> Globally, the majority of people and scientists accept climate change, with man having a large influence. This is supported with vast amounts of evidence and upheld by governments worldwide. Climate change denialism appears to be a problem only present in America. It's not worth debating individuals who believe they know more then the world governments and scientists on an Internet forum. It gets nowhere.



*Globally, the majority of people and scientists accept climate change
*
There used to be a mile thick sheet of ice over Chicago, then the climate changed. No one denies that.

*with man having a large influence
*
How large? 5%? 10%?

*It's not worth debating individuals who believe they know more then the world governments and scientists on an Internet forum.
*
It depends. Do all these scientists and governments think CO2 is enough of a threat to build hundreds of new nuclear power plants?


----------



## Dovahkiin (Jan 7, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dovahkiin said:
> 
> 
> > Globally, the majority of people and scientists accept climate change, with man having a large influence. This is supported with vast amounts of evidence and upheld by governments worldwide. Climate change denialism appears to be a problem only present in America. It's not worth debating individuals who believe they know more then the world governments and scientists on an Internet forum. It gets nowhere.
> ...


You're bringing up irrelevant examples. The climate of the past did indeed change, that isn't relevant when we have evidence showing our effects on the climate since industrialization took place. I support nuclear power plants, although some people on the left don't. Many governments are taking action against climate change, the only country that has a sizable amount of deniers is America. Again, I will not debate climate change science specifically, I know how the game works. Downplaying data, bringing up millions of years ago as if that's relevant when we have already observed our effects, etc.. Our influence is clearly large, given that virtually every world government recognizes it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 7, 2016)

Dovahkiin said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Dovahkiin said:
> ...


*
The climate of the past did indeed change, that isn't relevant when we have evidence showing our effects on the climate since industrialization took place.
*
Is your evidence higher temperatures since the Little Ice Age ended?
*
Many governments are taking action against climate change,*

Good for them. Then we can stop wasting our money on it.

*Our influence is clearly large,
*
Clearly. 0.1, 0.2 degrees, easily.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Jan 14, 2016)

With the constant rise of Global Warming of the planet it is a good thing because then there will no longer be snowstorms that cause massive interstate pileups.  Right?

Multiple interstate pileups reported in midwestern, northeastern US as snow squalls strike


> Indiana State Police reported multi-vehicle crashes on interstates 70 and 74 Tuesday morning as a fast-moving clipper system covered the Ohio Valley and Northeast with snow.
> 
> Additionally, as snow spread eastward, a crash involving at least 10 vehicles on I-70 in Pennsylvania was reported, according to WTAE-TV in Pittsburgh.


 I guess God didn't get the message about the Earth Warming up year after year.  Funny how liberals get a smack down when they open their mouths and *LIE*.


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 14, 2016)

Dovahkiin said:


> *The climate of the past did indeed change, that isn't relevant when we have evidence showing our effects on the climate since industrialization took place.*





Toddsterpatriot said:


> Is your evidence higher temperatures since the Little Ice Age ended?



Scientists are pretty clear about what caused the LIA and when it began and ended.

*The Little Ice Age* (LIA) was a period of cooling that occurred after the Medieval Warm Period.[1] While *it was not a true ice age*, the term was introduced into the scientific literature by François E. Matthes in 1939.[2] *It has been conventionally defined as a period extending from the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries,[3][4][5] or alternatively, from about 1300[6] to about 1850,[7][8][9]* although climatologists and historians working with local records no longer expect to agree on either the start or end dates of this period, which varied according to local conditions. *The NASA Earth Observatory notes three particularly cold intervals: one beginning about 1650, another about 1770, and the last in 1850, each separated by intervals of slight warming.[5] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report considered the timing and areas affected by the LIA suggested largely independent regional climate changes, rather than a globally synchronous increased glaciation. At most there was modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during the period.[10]*

*Scientists have tentatively identified these possible causes of the Little Ice Age: orbital cycles; decreased solar activity; increased volcanic activity; altered ocean current flows;[67] the inherent variability of global climate; and reforestation following decreases in the human population.
*
The natural factors that caused the LIA ran their course and that period ended.

The abrupt, rapid, un-natural and accelerating global warming over the last century or so has nothing to do with the LIA or its ending. It is being driven by the 43% increase in a powerful greenhouse gas that mankind's activities have caused, as the world scientific community strongly affirms.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Jan 15, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> Dovahkiin said:
> 
> 
> > *The climate of the past did indeed change, that isn't relevant when we have evidence showing our effects on the climate since industrialization took place.*
> ...





> The abrupt, rapid, un-natural and accelerating global warming over the last century or so has nothing to do with the LIA or its ending. It is being driven by the 43% increase in a powerful greenhouse gas that mankind's activities have caused, as the world scientific community strongly affirms.


 I noticed that your article didn't mention the coming Ice Age in the 1970's.
Sorry, a TIME Magazine Cover Did Not Predict a Coming Ice Age | TIME.com


> *Sorry, a TIME Magazine Cover Did Not Predict a Coming Ice Age*
> A doctored TIME magazine cover warns of a coming ice age. But the reality remains that the world is warming, thanks chiefly to human action


 After 3 years of extreme cold and snow, the liberals had to walk back this prediction because there was solar activity that started warming the Earth.  By 2000 Al Gore was harping on the exact same things happening, but called it Global Warming, and after the Carbon Credit Exchange was created, the rest of the libs saw an opportunity to make obscene profits by robbing the tax payer by causing energy prices to necessarily skyrocket through carbon taxes.  But how can an increase of CO2 from .03%(three hundredths of one percent) to .04%(four hundredths of one percent) be so deadly?  It isn't, because CO2 isn't a green house gas but water vapor is.  Since liberals haven't figured out how to tax water vapor yet(evaporation from the oceans) they continue to bash CO2(life giving gas for green plants, do liberals hate green plants?) because it can be taxed as it is brought out of the ground, taxed when it is used, and the Rich are getting Richer, and the most in poverty ever with the first 1/2 president in office, for 7 years now.  Liberals are the dumbest people on the planet and have no clue who the REAL enemies of US are.

How did Al Gore make 1/2 billion dollars after exiting office of the V.P.   He and others stole money from US to make themselves 1%ers.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 15, 2016)

Dovahkiin said:


> Globally, the majority of people and scientists accept climate change, with man having a large influence. This is supported with vast amounts of evidence and upheld by governments worldwide. Climate change denialism appears to be a problem only present in America. It's not worth debating individuals who believe they know more then the world governments and scientists on an Internet forum. It gets nowhere.


bye


----------



## RollingThunder (Jan 15, 2016)

andaronjim said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > Dovahkiin said:
> ...


You fool, the article you cited and quoted doesn't support your position at all...just the opposite! 

It says right in your quote: *"A doctored TIME magazine cover warns of a coming ice age. But the reality remains that the world is warming, thanks chiefly to human action."*

The article goes on to say: 
*But the hoax does touch on an important part of climate science — and one that’s often misunderstood by skeptics. Call it the Ice Age Fallacy. Skeptics argue that back in the 1970s both popular media and some scientists were far more worried about global cooling than they were about global warming. For some reason a Newsweek article on the next ice age, published back in 1975, gets a lot of the attention, though TIME did a version of the story, as did a number of other media outlets. The rationale goes this way: the fact that scientists were once supposedly so concerned about global cooling, which didn’t come true, just shows that we shouldn’t worry about the new fears of climate change.

But as John Cook points out over at Skeptical Science, global cooling was much more an invention of the media than it was a real scientific concern. A survey of peer-reviewed scientific papers published between 1965 and 1979 shows that the large majority of research at the time predicted that the earth would warm as carbon-dioxide levels rose — as indeed it has. And some of those global-cooling projections were based on the idea that aerosol levels in the atmosphere — which are a product of air pollution from sources like coal burning and which contribute to cooling by deflecting sunlight in the atmosphere — would keep rising. But thanks to environmental legislation like the Clean Air Acts, global air-pollution levels — not including greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide — peaked in the 1970s and began declining.

The reality is that scientists in the 1970s were just beginning to understand how climate change and aerosol pollution might impact global temperatures. Add in the media-hype cycle — which was true then as it is now — and you have some coverage that turned out to be wrong. But thanks to the Internet, those stories stay undead, recycled by notorious climate skeptics like George Will. Pay no attention to the Photoshop. It’s the science we should heed — and the science says man-made climate change is real and very, very worrying.*


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Jan 20, 2016)

ClosedCaption said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...


 Major snowstorm may threaten DC to NYC Friday into Saturday


> A major winter storm will hit the eastern United States with the potential for heavy snow to impact more than 50 million people at the end of the week.


You libtards are the dumbest people on the planet.  You drink the liberal kool aid coming out of the Rainbow House, salute Der Fuhrer and walk around like mindnumbed useful idiots. 
Conservatives never ever denied climate change, for the climate has been changing since the beginning of time.  I know I have had to repeat this again, since liberals mental faculty is about as long as 30 seconds, then they forget again(if they stopped smoking POT, they might get better memory). 
My question to you dumber than a box of rocks, if the polar ice caps are melting(over 32 degrees F) how does snow(32 degrees or below) come from the NORTH?  Because the Earth must be warming up so the cold air can come down from the north.  ROFL....  Your liberal argument just doesn't make sense, but then anything a liberal says doesn't make sense.  Now call me a racist and run away.


----------



## ChrisL (Jan 20, 2016)

It doesn't really matter.  If there is global warming or global cooling, there is not really too much we can do about that . . . if it is already occurring.  Damn carbon credits are NOT going to save your sorry arse.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Jan 20, 2016)

US: 2015 was hottest on Earth by a wide margin


> WASHINGTON (AP) — Last year wasn't just the Earth's hottest year on record — it left a century of high temperature marks in the dust.


 If 2016  isn't as hot as 2015 was, does this mean the Global Warming is a LIE?  You can bet the libs forgot about how they love to say one thing, then find out that they stuck their foot in their mouth.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 20, 2016)

andaronjim said:


> US: 2015 was hottest on Earth by a wide margin
> 
> 
> > WASHINGTON (AP) — Last year wasn't just the Earth's hottest year on record — it left a century of high temperature marks in the dust.
> ...


dude, they'll just grab a graph and adjust it to make it the warmest.  Don't you get it, they 've already been shown wrong by Mother Nature.  And they can't accept that so they went back and adjusted previous records to cool off the past.  Funny stuff is a libturd.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Jan 21, 2016)

China braces for worst cold in 30 years


> Schools have been suspended and emergency workers put on standby in China as the country braces for historically cold weather, including 30-year lows in places, the government and state media said Thursday.


 Hmmm, if you go back to my most recent post, it said that 2015 was the hottest season on record.  If that is true, how can there be historically cold weather?  I love doing this to a liberal, because they have no answer , will call me a racist, blame George Bush, then run away and cry.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 21, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > RollingThunder said:
> ...




Quit trying to change history fool.


The Coming Ice Age - 1978:


----------



## Crick (Jan 21, 2016)

In Search of... only the finest science need apply.  Was this before or after In Search of the Abominable Snowman, Bigfoot and the Area 51 Aliens?


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 21, 2016)

Just a little reminder to those curious board members peeking in on this thread.........tens of thousands of PHd and Ma. scientists are on public record saying the whole "man-made" mantra on global working is a load of shit. The AGW climate crusaders call them fake scientists, of course!!


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 29, 2016)

Today while coming into work in Virginia, the temperature outside(not inside) was a below average 46 degrees.  Where did this cooling come from, if year after year, with the CO2 increase, the Earth is warming at an alarming rate?  Why wont liberals ever answer this?  Oh yeah it is just weather.  But then when it gets hot, it is climate change?  Liberalism is a mental disorder.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 29, 2016)

andaronjim said:


> Today while coming into work in Virginia, the temperature outside(not inside) was a below average 46 degrees.  Where did this cooling come from, if year after year, with the CO2 increase, the Earth is warming at an alarming rate?  Why wont liberals ever answer this?  Oh yeah it is just weather.  But then when it gets hot, it is climate change?  Liberalism is a mental disorder.


You're stupid. Just because the weather is cold where you live doesn't mean anything.

You just aren't smart enough to have an opinion


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 29, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > Today while coming into work in Virginia, the temperature outside(not inside) was a below average 46 degrees.  Where did this cooling come from, if year after year, with the CO2 increase, the Earth is warming at an alarming rate?  Why wont liberals ever answer this?  Oh yeah it is just weather.  But then when it gets hot, it is climate change?  Liberalism is a mental disorder.
> ...


Why wont you answer my question?  Dumbass......


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 29, 2016)

andaronjim said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > andaronjim said:
> ...


When the polar caps get warmed it might make it rain and hail in Texas a lot and it might make for warmer winters like it does here in Michigan.  The climate is out of wack BECAUSE we are warming the polar caps.  It doesn't mean everywhere in the world is going to be warmer all the time.  The sea ice warms, it causes tornado's, sunami's, droughts, snow, hail etc. that wouldn't otherwise be happening in the places it's happening. 

How do I know?  Scientists tell me.  I'm not an expert.  I certainly don't know what I'm talking about and I seriously doubt you, Mr. Virginia, knows a damn thing about it either.

What I do know is you are a skeptic when it comes to science because you are probably a right wing tool.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 29, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


But if the Polar caps get warmed does that mean the temperature up there is above 32 degrees?  How can the US get polar vortex's below 32 degrees if the Polar is above 32 degrees?  I have yet to have a liberal explain that theory....  If the planet is warming year after year, how can it be colder than it was the year before?  This time last year in Virginia the temperature was around 70 degrees? 
Sorry but I cant drink the liberal koolaid that comes out of the whitehouse, because I am a thinker not a goosestepping, mindnumbed, useful liberal idiot, who salutes Der Fuhrer.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 29, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


So if the scientist told you that the Earth was flat, you would believe them?  Because you aren't smart enough to know better?  You can only see what is in front of you, so instead of reading up on how .04%(four hundredths of one percent) of the Earths atmosphere is CO2 that it is the cause of the Earth Warming up.  Water Vapor makes up 70% of the Earths atmosphere yet why isnt that being demonized by the liberals?  Because liberals cant tax water vapor, if they could they would, but liberals sure can tax coal and oil, and if they win, you can bet there wont be enough electricity or plastics around for your consumption.  That is the difference between a tard like you, and someone with a science background like me.  Now go ahead and make more of a fool out of yourself.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 29, 2016)

andaronjim said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > andaronjim said:
> ...


You should ask a scientist except for the fact you don't trust them.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 29, 2016)

andaronjim said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > andaronjim said:
> ...


So if a preacher told you something stupid would you believe them?  Oh yea, you do that already.  

I bet you work in the coal mines or oil fields you human canary.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 29, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


You still didn't answer the question, where does the cold 32 degrees come from if the polar ice is melting above 32 degrees?


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 29, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


No, since I think on my own, I have questioned religion, while you who are a left wing global warming religious fanatical zelot, continue to pray to the Al Jazeera Gore deity.  When your religion is questioned, you get defensive and call us "skeptics"  yet never answer questions presented in a scientific manner.  Why is it that Al Jazeera a VP of Clinton, made 1/2 billion dollars from Carbon Credits,(your tax dollars) and you have no problem with that?  Yet if a CEO gets paid a million dollars employing hundreds of people, you guys demonize him for being paid so much?  Liberals are hypocrites.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 29, 2016)

andaronjim said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > andaronjim said:
> ...


Ask a weatherman.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 29, 2016)

andaronjim said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > andaronjim said:
> ...



A scientist could give you the best answer and you'd say, "I'm not buying it".  Because you are a skeptic.  It's not like you are an impartial person here on this.  You're a right wing GW denier.  Probably a coal miner or gas guzzler.  Conspiracy theorist.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 29, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Please answer my question, since you are in the tank for Global Warming, how is it last year in Virginia it was 70 degrees and with the Earth warming up year after year how can it be 42 degrees?  Please explain?
There are some scientists that agree with me that global warming is a hoax, how come you wont listen to him.  Weather Channel Co-Founder Tells Fox News Host Global Warming Is A Myth


> Coleman stunned many global warming supporters in October with an open letter he penned claiming that the science behind climate change was “not valid.”
> 
> “There is no significant man-made global warming at this time,” he wrote.


 Because Sillybobo, you would then realize that your life has been one big lie.  Then you would go out and remove yourself from society decreasing the population by 1 CO2 producer making the world just a little bit safer?


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 29, 2016)

andaronjim said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > andaronjim said:
> ...



Part of the confusion comes down to your understanding of weather and climate. People question the scientific reality of global warming because they don't know the difference between the two.  Weather is what we see day-to-day. It explains changes in the atmosphere over short periods of time and is highly unpredictable. A sudden thunderstorm or blizzard is what we refer to as weather.  Climate, on the other hand, describes the behavior of the atmosphere over long periods of time.

Using weather as evidence against global warming is kind of like using one man's early death to disprove the fact that, on average, life expectancies are increasing.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 29, 2016)

There will continue to be hot and cold extremes, but when the weather is averaged over time, a clear warming trend emerges. The2009 State of the Climate Report, compiled by hundreds of scientists around the world, revealed that the first decade of this century was thehottest since scientists started recording data in the 1880s.

The current decade is shaping up to be a record breaker, as well. Data just released by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) show thatthis October was the hottest one on record– and April, May, June, August, and September all broke their own records this year, too.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 29, 2016)

But climate contrarians will still protest: "Our climate has gone through huge transitions before!" That's true.  Over the past millions of years the Earth has shifted betweenwarm "interglacial" periods and cool "glacial" periods. These changes, however, occurred over long stretches of time and were caused by natural variation in the Earth's system. The changes in climate that scientists are observing today are man-made, caused by an increasing level of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the planet. As a result, the warming of our planet is happening on a much shorter time-scale than ever before.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 29, 2016)

andaronjim said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > andaronjim said:
> ...


In fact, the whirlpool of frigid air, known as the "polar vortex" — which was blamed for last winter's"eye-popping" cold weatherand has been held responsible for some of this month's frigid conditions — may actually be tied to warming temperatures in the Arctic.

During the winter, these winds normally remain locked up over the Arctic. Last winter, the polar vortex made headlines when it became notably unstable (a pattern that was also observed in 2009-2010),possibly because of melting ice and warmer polar winters. The weakened vortex allows streams of the cold Arctic air to break free, flowing into other parts of the Northern Hemisphere.

Earlier this month, polar winds were disrupted by a weather event known as a "bomb cyclone," which rammed into the polar jetstream and sent a flurry of unseasonably cold weather south through North America. According to theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, warming temperatures are likely to cause an increase in extreme weather events around the globe, including the kind of cyclone mentioned above.

So while this wintry weather may seem like a sign of hope for the earth, it's important to note that climate change is capable of producing all kinds of effects. And paying attention to longterm patterns rather than short-term weather events is the best way to find out the truth about what's happening on the planet.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Apr 29, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> There will continue to be hot and cold extremes, but when the weather is averaged over time, a clear warming trend emerges. The2009 State of the Climate Report, compiled by hundreds of scientists around the world, revealed that the first decade of this century was thehottest since scientists started recording data in the 1880s.
> 
> The current decade is shaping up to be a record breaker, as well. Data just released by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) show thatthis October was the hottest one on record– and April, May, June, August, and September all broke their own records this year, too.


Great news.  Most weather related deaths are due to cold, this warming will save millions of lives and open up millions of acres for farming and habitation.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 29, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > There will continue to be hot and cold extremes, but when the weather is averaged over time, a clear warming trend emerges. The2009 State of the Climate Report, compiled by hundreds of scientists around the world, revealed that the first decade of this century was thehottest since scientists started recording data in the 1880s.
> ...


Tell that to the people who used to live on Venus.
'Cosmos' Visits Venus to Talk Climate Change Sunday Night


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Apr 29, 2016)

So you think people used to live on Venus, huh?

Who said the left hate science?


----------



## SSDD (Apr 29, 2016)

How could anyone deny man made climate change?....The real question is how could anyone believe it is true...

I started a thread asking for just one small bit...one tiny shred....one minisule piece of actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence gathered out here in the real, observable, measurable, quantifiable, empirical world that supports the A (that's anthropogenic, or man made) component of the AGW hypothesis...thus far, not the first bit of evidence supporting the A in AGW has been posted...clearly, there is none...not the first bit and yet you goobs think that the science is settled and it is a proven fact....how is that when there is zero actual evidence in support of the claim?


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 29, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> So you think people used to live on Venus, huh?
> 
> Who said the left hate science?


Do you think no life ever lived on Venus?  How about Mars?  I bet you think we are the only life in the entire universe.  

Planetary scientist David Grinspoon, astrobiology curator at the Denver Museum of Nature and Science, points out that high in the Venusian atmosphere temperatures are refreshingly tolerable. Atmospheric sulfur dioxide and carbon monoxide might serve as food for floating microbes.

How do you know 5 billion years ago Mars wasn't the earth of our solar system?


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Apr 29, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > So you think people used to live on Venus, huh?
> ...


Do your Martian and Venution friends communicate with you often?


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Apr 29, 2016)

SSDD said:


> How could anyone deny man made climate change?....The real question is how could anyone believe it is true...
> 
> I started a thread asking for just one small bit...one tiny shred....one minisule piece of actual observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence gathered out here in the real, observable, measurable, quantifiable, empirical world that supports the A (that's anthropogenic, or man made) component of the AGW hypothesis...thus far, not the first bit of evidence supporting the A in AGW has been posted...clearly, there is none...not the first bit and yet you goobs think that the science is settled and it is a proven fact....how is that when there is zero actual evidence in support of the claim?


It's part of the narcissistic behavior of the left - they think they control the weather too.


----------



## SSDD (Apr 29, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > How could anyone deny man made climate change?....The real question is how could anyone believe it is true...
> ...




They want to control everything and kill whoever doesn't agree with them....


----------



## Wyatt earp (Apr 29, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > So you think people used to live on Venus, huh?
> ...



Because The earth and mars are  only 4..5 billion years old pick up a astrology book once and awhile 


.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 29, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


Ah yes, so when the artic gets above 32 degrees the air south of it goes below 32 degrees, got it. ROTFLMAO........The liberals who are stealing US tax dollars in the name of research and CCX investors thank you for your goosestepping....


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Apr 29, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > So you think people used to live on Venus, huh?
> ...


Young solar system - creation.com


> Accepted theories of evolutionary science say our Earth and our solar system formed about 4.6 billion years ago.


 Instead of listening to politicians who have a liberal agenda to steal our money and make themselves and liberal elite special interest groups uber wealthy, try studying REAL science so when someone tells you life on Mars was 5 billion years ago, you cant point out that is a LIE(typical of a liberal) because Mars wasn't even created yet.  Unless you are a skeptic of science?


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 29, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > How could anyone deny man made climate change?....The real question is how could anyone believe it is true...
> ...


And you don't worry about this planet because you're stupid enough to believe that whatever happens is God's Will and there's a heaven waiting for you after you die dumbass


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 29, 2016)

andaronjim said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


I just threw the number 5 million or 5 billion out as a random number so don't get all high-and-mighty and thank you got your gocha moment because you don't. Scientists do think life was once on Mars and we just don't know yet but chances are you're wrong we're right bye


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 29, 2016)

bear513 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


OK 1 billion or 2 billion years ago. Happy now stupid? Did you miss the point idiot? I think you did if you are caught up on this.


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 29, 2016)

andaronjim said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > andaronjim said:
> ...


You would have to ask someone who knows why exactly you are a retard. I only know you are based on your stupid ignorant conspiracy theory arguments


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 29, 2016)

Same people that said lead and tobacco weren't bad for us now argue Gw is a lie. That's why I know you are wrong and liars. It took twenty years to convince you you were wrong on lead and smoke. We don't have twenty years on this one. Losers


----------



## Wyatt earp (Apr 29, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...




How can I take anyone serious who don't even know the age of the planets are?

I feel like I am talking to a bible thumper.


.


----------



## Markle (Apr 29, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Same people that said lead and tobacco weOren't bad for us now argue Gw is a lie. That's why I know you are wrong and liars. It took twenty years to convince you you were wrong on lead and smoke. We don't have twenty years on this one. Losers



When I was a tyke, and this is in the EARLY 50's, it seemed EVERYONE SMOKED!  I recall vividly that the nickname, in my parents' circle and both smoked HEAVILY, for cigarettes were, "COFFIN NAILS" another was "CANCER STICKS".  For whatever reason, I never smoked even having been born in that time frame.  What I detest is that people are STILL successfully suing the cigarette manufacturers because..."they didn't know".  GIVE ME A BREAK!

I know of NO ONE who ever said lead was not harmful.  I LOVED LEADED GAS, my '66 Goat ran better.  Lead is an excellent lubricant.  I tried to be "clean" in another car of a slightly later era by using "white gas" (unleaded).  It destroyed the carburetor and several other parts.  Unquestionably, lead is bad.  I certainly don't want all the cars on the road today driving with the same lead amount we used in the '60's.

Your FALSE ANALOGY with these PROVABLE, DEMONSTRABLE products, is stone cold foolish.  NO PROOF, and in fact just the opposite exits.  NO GLOBAL WARMING IN OVER EIGHTEEN YEARS!   On top of that, we now see that the WHOLE GLOBAL WARMING SCHTICK IS A LIE. 

Even you no longer can possible believe the numbers being given out by the very leaders of the scam were total LIES.  Lies for many years.

How do you defend such behavior?


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 29, 2016)

bear513 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


Oh shut the hell up I tossed out the number 5 billion but I could have just as easily said 1 billion or 500 million years ago.  Don't quote me on the fucking number dummy.  

But you will avoid the point I made.  Instead you'll just carry on for 5 pages about how I don't know the age of the earth.  Of course I do.  It's 6000 years old.  LOL


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 29, 2016)

bear513 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...





Markle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Same people that said lead and tobacco weOren't bad for us now argue Gw is a lie. That's why I know you are wrong and liars. It took twenty years to convince you you were wrong on lead and smoke. We don't have twenty years on this one. Losers
> ...


The main part of the problem lies in the two groups using different definitions of how global warming appears in the climate. This is one of the reasons that those advocating that global warming is real now use the term “climate change,” since it is more reflective of the real issue. The other problem lies in proof, and in studies that try to prove whether or not global warming is real. Contrary to public belief, the results of all scientific studies aren’t conclusive.
To be considered proof of a hypothesis, the studies have to be able to be replicated by others and produce the same results. With the global warming studies, analysis of decades of weather data is often used. The first problem is that weather data from 100 years ago wasn’t kept to modern standards of evidence. The second problem is that analysis is interpretation; you can really put any spin on it. This is why some of the arguments for and against whether global warming is real can use the same data and come to different conclusions.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Apr 29, 2016)

ClosedCaption said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...



Now, there's a scientific statement for you......


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 29, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Same people that said lead and tobacco weren't bad for us now argue Gw is a lie. That's why I know you are wrong and liars. It took twenty years to convince you you were wrong on lead and smoke. We don't have twenty years on this one. Losers



If the warmers weren't trying to get us to waste trillions on unreliable, "green energy", we'd ignore your lies and data manipulation.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 29, 2016)

Markle said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Same people that said lead and tobacco weOren't bad for us now argue Gw is a lie. That's why I know you are wrong and liars. It took twenty years to convince you you were wrong on lead and smoke. We don't have twenty years on this one. Losers
> ...


*
cigarettes were, "COFFIN NAILS" another was "CANCER STICKS".* 

Yeah, they act like no one knew they were bad before the Surgeon General's warning.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 29, 2016)

ClosedCaption said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > ClosedCaption said:
> ...



"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole..."

See?

Do you want your







now?


----------



## sealybobo (Apr 29, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


We didn't know for sure because of cancer deniers.  Why didn't the cigarette industry just fess up then?

I also remember fighting with Corporations for 20 years on Lead poisoning.  They swore it was safe.  Fucking liars.  And you fucking idiots for believing them.  Same dopes who doubt GW.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 29, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...



*We didn't know for sure because of cancer deniers.
*
What is a cancer denier?
*
Why didn't the cigarette industry just fess up then?
*
Why did they need to, there was a Surgeon General warning on the pack.

*Same dopes who doubt GW.*

Or the dopes who say we can stop it, if we spend trillions of dollars on windmills.


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 29, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...




That's right s0n........clearly there are zero special interests attached to climate change!! None......completely about the science!!


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 29, 2016)

LOL.....these people who are hopelessly duped on global warming are the most naïve mofu's walking. Its fascinating........


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 29, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




Thankfully Todd......that's not going to happen. The climate k00ks can gloat all they want about their science but its about as relevant as model railroaders saying their layout is the best. Nobody cares. In the real world, their science is having zero impact on public policy. That's all I care about. Fossil fuels are going to dominate for at least several decades while renewables will remain laughable.( <10% ). Know what that means Todd? They're not winning........


----------



## Markle (Apr 29, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Attorney's saw a way to become rich beyond their wildest imagination.  Strange from my perspective, or hypocritical.  EVERYONE KNEW they caused cancer, shortness of breath, coughing etc., etc..  Yet, it seemed to me, EVERYONE went through a massive broadway show from the first trial to the last.


----------



## Crick (Apr 30, 2016)

The purpose of the trial was not to determine whether or not smoking causes cancer.  The purpose of the trial was to determine whether or not the tobacco companies had known about it and chosen to conduct a disinformation campaign to sow doubt as to that point among the public.

The same is true of these investigations into the fossil fuel companies and their paid mouthpieces.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (May 2, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


And don't worry about this planet because you are too stupid enough to believe that whatever happens is Obama's will and there's is hell waiting for you after you die, dumbass.   Such stupid people who continue to vote democrat, while the most US citizens ever in poverty, the liberal elites have gotten RICHER, inner cities burning, and your messiah jet setting around in Air Force one making a HUMONGOUS carbon footprint, you pitifully stupid person.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (May 2, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Same people that said lead and tobacco weren't bad for us now argue Gw is a lie. That's why I know you are wrong and liars. It took twenty years to convince you you were wrong on lead and smoke. We don't have twenty years on this one. Losers


Yeah we don't have twenty years, now we have 100 years, because then those stupid enough to believe in GW will be dead and cant compare notes.  When liberals cant meet expectations, then they lower the bar, so then they cant be held accountable.  Such stupid people who vote Democrat.


----------



## sealybobo (May 2, 2016)

andaronjim said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


You want those people to be paid more? Really?


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (May 2, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> Same people that said lead and tobacco weren't bad for us now argue Gw is a lie. That's why I know you are wrong and liars. It took twenty years to convince you you were wrong on lead and smoke. We don't have twenty years on this one. Losers





andaronjim said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Weatherman2020 said:
> ...


Of course Sillybobo thought this was funny, since everything I just said was true.  Libtards cant debate, they just insult those who have higher intelligence, while trying to make themselves appear to be smart.  We the People know better.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (May 2, 2016)

sealybobo said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...


You seem to be okay with Al Jazeera Gore making a 1/2 billion dollars, Warrant Buffet and Bill Gates having their billions, using up millions of dollars of unclean electricity to power their buildings, riding around in their private jets and riding in their limos.  Shame you are as ignorant as a Left Wing Radical Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorist.  You want to ride around on a camel?  Go ahead, live in a tent, stop using your computer that is powered by coal electricity.  Dumbass.


----------



## SSDD (May 16, 2016)

Dovahkiin said:


> You're bringing up irrelevant examples. The climate of the past did indeed change, that isn't relevant when we have evidence showing our effects on the climate since industrialization took place.



No.  We have evidence showing that the climate has changed somewhat since we industrialized...we have no evidence showing that industrialization is the cause.  In fact, we don't have the first bit of observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting the anthropogenic component of the AGW hypothesis...


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (May 16, 2016)

April breaks global temperature record, marking seven months of new highs


> April breaks global temperature record, marking seven months of new highs


  When liberal lickspittle lapdog global warming religious fanatical zelots make such a bold statement about rise in temperature, they better make sure that the month of May will *have to be hotter*, or the whole theory of Man Made by CO2 is blown away, or the liberals have to LIE again.  So I have a record of temperatures from last week to this next week, and Al Jazeera Gores theory looks like the Titanic.
Manassas 38 °F °C
Partly Sunny

Feels Like 38°
Wind
S
2 mph
Barometer 30.19 in
Visibility 9 mi
Humidity 92%
Dew Point 37°
Previous days Next days

Mon 16


0%


63°

38°


Sunrise
5:56 am 
Sunset
8:16 pm

Tue 17


80%

56°

52°


Sunrise
5:55 am 
Sunset
8:17 pm

Wed 18


80%

63°

48°


Sunrise
5:54 am 
Sunset
8:18 pm

Thu 19


40%

67°

47°


Sunrise
5:53 am 
Sunset
8:19 pm

Fri 20


40%

70°

56°


Sunrise
5:53 am 
Sunset
8:20 pm

Sat 21


80%

65°

57°


Sunrise
5:52 am 
Sunset
8:21 pm

Sun 22


80%

68°

57°


Sunrise
5:51 am 
Sunset
8:21 pm

Mon 23


60%

71°

57°


Sunrise
5:51 am 
Sunset
8:22 pm

Tue 24


30%

76°

60°


Sunrise
5:50 am 
Sunset
8:23 pm

Wed 25


40%

80°

66°


Sunrise
5:49 am 
Sunset
8:24 pm


----------



## Crick (May 16, 2016)

andaronjim said:


> April breaks global temperature record, marking seven months of new highs
> 
> 
> > April breaks global temperature record, marking seven months of new highs
> ...



Yo, asshole, you're wrong.  And sufficiently wrong that you must be stupid. So, stupid and wrong.  And an asshole.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 17, 2016)

andaronjim said:


> April breaks global temperature record, marking seven months of new highs
> 
> 
> > April breaks global temperature record, marking seven months of new highs
> ...



When rightwingnut, anti-science, delusional, human-caused global warming denying dingbats get REALLY retarded, they post exceptionally ignorant and very demented bullcrap like that.

No, dumbfuck, the scientific fact that the more than 43% increase in atmospheric CO2 levels that mankind's activities has produced is causing global warming DOES NOT MEAN that every month has to be hotter than the previous month....moron!


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (May 17, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > April breaks global temperature record, marking seven months of new highs
> ...


So what you are saying is that when the atmosphere was 0.03%(three hundredths of 1 percent) and it went to 0.04%(four hundredths of 1 percent) that 43% of that was do to man made causes?  That the Earth that spews CO2 from volcanic activity, that animals in the world spew CO2 and only man created the rest?  Well then, if the Earth is warming year after year and the Month of April was the hottest on record with 7 months prior also hot, why in the Month of May have we seen well below normal weather?  Because you lemmings believe whatever you lickspittle lapdog media tells you.  And you liberal politicians have become UBER WEALTHY(1%'ers) stealing your carbon tax dollars.  Such stupid people who vote dumbocrat.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 17, 2016)

*April Temperature Anomalies - Global vs. Northern Hemisphere*
These graphs are based on the April anomalies from the NASA GISS data: 
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts.csv 
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/NH.Ts.csv 

I chose to normalize my graphs to the average of 1880-1930 readings. I chose 1930 as the baseline cutoff point because that was just before the first step change is visible in the data.

The Northern Hemisphere (NH) has been consistently warmer than the global average. 

In April 2016, the global anomaly relative to the chosen baseline was +1.8° C. 

The Northern Hemisphere 2016 anomaly was half a degree higher than the global anomaly: *+2.32° C* above the baseline.
I looked at linear trends since 1965, which is when the temperatures really began to rise.

The world appears to be warming at about 0.2° C per decade, while the NH is warming at 0.3° C per decade. 

The NH trend finishes in 2050 at *+2.75° C* 

The global anomaly trend finishes at about *+2.15° C* 


The global anomaly in 2016 was *0.55° C* higher than the 2010-2015 average. 

The NH anomaly was* 0.685° C higher* than the preceding 5 year-average.
A note about El Nino: 

There has been a lot of speculation about how much the recent El Nino has added to the recent temperature increase. On these graphs you can see that the 1998 El Nino caused quite a minor deviation. In 2016, the global temperature response to El Nino has been about 50% stronger than in 1998, but the NH response was only 10% stronger, compared to the anomaly one year earlier in 1997 and 2015. 
I expect the temperature rise over the next year or two to moderate from the torrid pace of 2016, perhaps by a couple of tenths of a degree or so. In the other hand, it could be that 2016 marks another acceleration point, similar to what the world saw in 1965. We'll have to wait and see. While it's too early to declare a non-linear trend, but it seems to be a definite possibility. 

It looks like some really bad times are coming.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (May 17, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *April Temperature Anomalies - Global vs. Northern Hemisphere*
> These graphs are based on the April anomalies from the NASA GISS data:
> http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts.csv
> http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/NH.Ts.csv
> ...


Why is it the North America doesn't want to play along with the rest of the world and its global warming, is it because God watches over this area?  Or is it that We the People cant go to the other places where FAUX scientist have placed sensors near warmer areas, like blacktop parking spaces, heating exhaust vents, or other hot areas, to scew their findings for more federal funding?

Climategate: University of East Anglia U-turn in climate change row


> The U-turn by the university follows a week of controversy after the emergence of hundreds of leaked emails, "stolen" by hackers and published online, triggered claims that the academics had massaged statistics.


 I guess if Barrack Hussein Obama told you lemmings to jump into an active volcano because it was to save the planet , you would?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 17, 2016)

andaronjim said:


> Climategate: University of East Anglia U-turn in climate change row
> 
> 
> > The U-turn by the university follows a week of controversy after the emergence of hundreds of leaked emails, "stolen" by hackers and published online, triggered claims that the academics had massaged statistics.
> ...


This is the date of the article you just posted..
By Robert Mendick

8:55PM GMT 28 *Nov 2009*
*Investigations Clear Scientists of Wrongdoing*

Six official investigations have cleared scientists of accusations of wrongdoing.


A three-part Penn State University cleared scientist Michael Mann of wrongdoing.
Two reviews commissioned by the University of East Anglia"supported the honesty and integrity of scientists in the Climatic Research Unit."
A UK Parliament reportconcluded that the emails have no bearing on our understanding of climate science and that claims against UEA scientists are misleading.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Inspector General's office concluded there was no evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of their employees.
The National Science Foundation's Inspector General's office concluded, "Lacking any direct evidence of research misconduct...we are closing this investigation with no further action."
Other agencies and media outlets have investigated the substance of the emails.



 

The Environmental Protection Agency, in response to petitions against action to curb heat-trapping emissions,dismissed attacks on the science rooted in the stolen emails.
 


Factcheck.org debunked claims that the emails put the conclusions of climate science into question.
 


Politifact.com rated claims that the emails falsify climate science as "false."
 




An Associated Press review of the emails found that they "don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

*as you Know *, the Climate Gate "scandal" has been thoroughly DEBUNKED and put in the trash exception by fanatical Idiots like you who keep putting up stuff that has been put in the trash can once it is examined...
One More time the debunk of the Climate Gate LOL
*Debunked Conspiracy Climategate Five Years Later |*



*Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails in the .*


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 17, 2016)

andaronjim said:


> Climategate: University of East Anglia U-turn in climate change row
> 
> 
> > The U-turn by the university follows a week of controversy after the emergence of hundreds of leaked emails, "stolen" by hackers and published online, triggered claims that the academics had massaged statistics.
> ...




*The entire world has dismissed your ridiculous conspiracy theory...*


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (May 17, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > Climategate: University of East Anglia U-turn in climate change row
> ...


Okay one more time to turn me into a believer.
How is it with the Arctic and Antarctic Ice melting(above 32 degrees) do Polar Vortex come into North America and FREEZE(below 32 degrees) the US?  IF you take away the funding for Global Warming, those consensus scientists would start showing the truth about how liberals are making obscene profits off our tax dollars.  Why the fuck do you allow the likes of Al Jazeera Gore to become a 1/2 billionaire from your tax dollars?  Doesn't that make him a 1%'er?  Such stupid people who vote dumbocrat.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 17, 2016)

andaronjim said:


> [
> How is it with the Arctic and Antarctic Ice melting(above 32 degrees) do Polar Vortex come into North America and FREEZE(below 32 degrees) the US?  IF you take away the funding for Global Warming, those consensus scientists would start showing the truth about how liberals are making obscene profits off our tax dollars.  Why the fuck do you allow the likes of Al Jazeera Gore to become a 1/2 billionaire from your tax dollars?  Doesn't that make him a 1%'er?  Such stupid people who vote dumbocrat.


Fuck you asshole you put up a debunked Bull shit article about a sham scandal ginned up by assholes like you to cast doubt where there is no doubt...I am not going to "try to convince" you...you are a moron a worthless propagandist for Bull shit ..*.and you are an EXTREMELY DISHONEST poster...keep your pathetic belief in "Lord Monckton" science fool*





09 May 2016, 4:26pm
* Disappearance of five islands in the Pacific blamed on climate change  *


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 17, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > Climategate: University of East Anglia U-turn in climate change row
> ...



*as you Know , the Climate Gate "scandal" has been thoroughly DEBUNKED*

LOL!


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 17, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *as you Know , the Climate Gate "scandal" has been thoroughly DEBUNKED*
> 
> LOL!



*ROFLMAO*
*Investigations Clear Scientists of Wrongdoing*

Six official investigations have cleared scientists of accusations of wrongdoing.


A three-part Penn State University cleared scientist Michael Mann of wrongdoing.
Two reviews commissioned by the University of East Anglia"supported the honesty and integrity of scientists in the Climatic Research Unit."
A UK Parliament reportconcluded that the emails have no bearing on our understanding of climate science and that claims against UEA scientists are misleading.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Inspector General's office concluded there was no evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of their employees.
The National Science Foundation's Inspector General's office concluded, "Lacking any direct evidence of research misconduct...we are closing this investigation with no further action."
Other agencies and media outlets have investigated the substance of the emails.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (May 17, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > andaronjim said:
> ...


Only you sociopaths believe that....

How to spot a sociopath - 10 red flags that could save you from being swept under the influence of a charismatic nut job


> *#10) Sociopaths are delusional and literally believe that what they say becomes truth* _merely because they say it!_
> *#5) Sociopaths seek to dominate others and "win" at all costs.* They hate to lose any argument or fight and will viciously defend their web of lies, even to the point of logical absurdity.


 Trump has a 53% approval rating, while the vagina candidate only has 36%.  When Trump becomes president you can bet the funding for consensus science will go by the way side, and the truth will come out.  Shame though you libidiots will start saving money on your CO2 taxes.  But if you don't want to keep that money then you can willing give it to Al Jazeera Gore so he can plant a tree to offset your CO2 footprint and make him billions of dollars....


Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/036112_sociopaths_cults_influence.html#ixzz48v21Anzp


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 17, 2016)

andaronjim said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...



*How to spot a sociopath - 10 red flags that could save you from being swept under the influence of a charismatic nut job*

Thanks. When did we start talking about Obama?


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (May 17, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Everything that you posted about debunking just proves the point of sociopathic behavior.  Problem for you libidiots is that more US citizens are not falling for your LIES anymore.  Trump will smack down the GW argument and make America Great "AGAIN".  ROTFLMAO on how stupid you people are.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 17, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *as you Know , the Climate Gate "scandal" has been thoroughly DEBUNKED*
> ...



*A three-part Penn State University** cleared scientist Michael Mann** of wrongdoing.*

Michael Mann, remember that shady shit you pulled that would really embarrass Penn State?
Don't worry, Penn State said it wasn't really shady. LOL!


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 17, 2016)

andaronjim said:


> Only you sociopaths believe that....


and the Pentagon LOL
*Pentagon orders commanders to prioritize climate change*
*Oh and The Pope *
*Pope Francis's encyclical call for action on climate change ...
Oh Wait and NOAA*
*noaa climate change report*
*Oh wait and NASA*
*Scientific Consensus - Climate Change - Nasa
You get the idea LOL*


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 17, 2016)

andaronjim said:


> Everything that you posted about debunking just proves the point of sociopathic behavior.  Problem for you libidiots is that more US citizens are not falling for your LIES anymore.  Trump will smack down the GW argument and make America Great "AGAIN".  ROTFLMAO on how stupid you people are.



I post links I post information *you just keep repeating YOUR STUPID OPINION* lol


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 17, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Michael Mann, remember that shady shit you pulled that would really embarrass Penn State?
> Don't worry, Penn State said it wasn't really shady. LOL!


OK what about this one *ROFLMAO*
*The Inspector General of the National Science Foundation has closed its investigation into climatologist Michael Mann after failing to find any evidence of misconduct*
Federal Investigators Clear Climate Scientist, Again - Scientific American


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (May 17, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > Everything that you posted about debunking just proves the point of sociopathic behavior.  Problem for you libidiots is that more US citizens are not falling for your LIES anymore.  Trump will smack down the GW argument and make America Great "AGAIN".  ROTFLMAO on how stupid you people are.
> ...


OMG, too funny.  It doesn't get better than this....


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (May 17, 2016)

All your liberal shit is just that shit.  Here is your precious IPCC telling the truth once again.

UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy'


> If you needed any more evidence that the entire theory of manmade global warming was a scheme to redistribute wealth you got it Sunday when a leading member of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change told a German news outlet, "[W]e redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy."


 That is why I laugh at you libidiots when ever you open your piehole..... See minions and have a CO2 laugh... Come on sour pusses, laugh, the world will end in 100 years, or maybe not...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 17, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > Only you sociopaths believe that....
> ...



*Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals**1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree:*

Aww geez, you've even got NASA pushing this bullshit stat.
I guess they were always political, maybe I just didn't want to notice before.

Yes, 75/77 is a very impressive number. LOL!


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 17, 2016)

andaronjim said:


> I post links I post information *you just keep repeating YOUR STUPID OPINION* lol
> 
> OMG, too funny.  It doesn't get better than this....


*




ROFLMAO *
 Here is some more Science 

In March 2010, the UK government's House of Commons Science and Technology Committee published a report finding that the criticisms of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) were misplaced and that CRU’s_"Professor Jones’s actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community"_.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 17, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Michael Mann, remember that shady shit you pulled that would really embarrass Penn State?
> ...



They should convict him for that lying hockey stick he created.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 17, 2016)

*Oh wait some more Investigations *
ROFLMAO

In February 2011, the Department of Commerce Inspector General conducted an independent review of the emails and found_"no evidence in the CRU emails that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data"_.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 17, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > I post links I post information *you just keep repeating YOUR STUPID OPINION* lol
> ...



*CRU’s*_*"Professor Jones’s actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community"*_*.
*
That's the problem, the shady shit was, and is, common practice amongst these clowns.
The public isn't falling for it anymore.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 17, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> They should convict him for that lying hockey stick he created.


Be careful he is like Trump he sues LOL


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 17, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *CRU’s*_*"Professor Jones’s actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community"*_*.
> *



*ROFLMAO*
*ExxonMobil's CEO admits global warming is caused by CO₂*
*



*


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 17, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Aww geez, you've even got NASA pushing this bullshit stat.
> I guess they were always political, maybe I just didn't want to notice before.


What is NASA compared to a Climate GUru Genius like you...NASA is nothing you are the GOd...ROFLMAO
*rex tillerson [CEO Exxon] admits global warming is real - YouTube*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 17, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Aww geez, you've even got NASA pushing this bullshit stat.
> ...



*What is NASA compared to a Climate GUru Genius like you
*
Well, if NASA is impressed by 75/77, then they're dumber than me.
*
rex tillerson [CEO Exxon] admits global warming is real 
*
The planet has been warming since the Little Ice Age ended.
I guess that's your excuse to cripple our economy?

*
*


----------



## jc456 (May 17, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


he has no idea what to believe, he is too busy looking for links and posting them up to show how smart he thinks he is.  he repeats the mumbo jumbo on queue all the time.  I laugh at the aggressiveness of it all.  Bolded greater fonts, like posting in that manner makes him more correct.  And yet, the 75 out 77 he can't ignore, cause he can't find anything to dispute that record.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 17, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> The planet has been warming since the Little Ice Age ended.
> I guess that's your excuse to cripple our economy?


*ROFLMAO*

*Scientific analysis of past climates shows that greenhouse gasses, principally CO2, have controlled most ancient climate changes. The evidence for that is spread throughout the geological record. This makes it clear that this time around humans are the cause, mainly by our CO2 emissions. *

*Climate Myth... *
Climate's changed before

Climate is always changing. We have had ice ages and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen.Ice ages have occurred in a hundred thousand year cycle for the last 700 thousand years, and there have been previous periods that appear to have been warmer than the present despiteCO2levels being lower than they are now. More recently, we have had the medieval warm period and the little ice age. (Richard Lindzen)

*What does past climate change tell us about global warming?*


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 17, 2016)

jc456 said:


> he has no idea what to believe, he is too busy looking for links and posting them up to show how smart he thinks he is.  he repeats the mumbo jumbo on queue all the time.  I laugh at the aggressiveness of it all.  Bolded greater fonts, like posting in that manner makes him more correct.  And yet, the 75 out 77 he can't ignore, cause he can't find anything to dispute that record.


You repeat your ridiculous opinions
*
Your opinions are stupid and not based on Science ...science is clearly not on your side LOL*




ROFLMAO


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 17, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > he has no idea what to believe, he is too busy looking for links and posting them up to show how smart he thinks he is.  he repeats the mumbo jumbo on queue all the time.  I laugh at the aggressiveness of it all.  Bolded greater fonts, like posting in that manner makes him more correct.  And yet, the 75 out 77 he can't ignore, cause he can't find anything to dispute that record.
> ...



Nice charts!
What is the current global temperature?
What is the ideal global temperature?


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (May 17, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > he has no idea what to believe, he is too busy looking for links and posting them up to show how smart he thinks he is.  he repeats the mumbo jumbo on queue all the time.  I laugh at the aggressiveness of it all.  Bolded greater fonts, like posting in that manner makes him more correct.  And yet, the 75 out 77 he can't ignore, cause he can't find anything to dispute that record.
> ...


Oh look he made it bigger thinking that this will sway us non believers over to his fanatical religion.  Just pointed out that the IPCC has confirmed that all the CO2 scheme is to take money from rich countries and give it to poor countries because it is "FAIRNESS".  To think that Tyrone is going to vote for the vagina candidate so she can tax him even more.  ROTFLMAO on the stupidity of the liberal voter.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (May 17, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > he has no idea what to believe, he is too busy looking for links and posting them up to show how smart he thinks he is.  he repeats the mumbo jumbo on queue all the time.  I laugh at the aggressiveness of it all.  Bolded greater fonts, like posting in that manner makes him more correct.  And yet, the 75 out 77 he can't ignore, cause he can't find anything to dispute that record.
> ...


Don't forget that in those charts the United States of America, cant be added because of the cooling anomalies that happened the past 5 years.  I mean North America only accounts for 1/16 of the globe so it doesn't count.  ROTFLMAO, once again on liberal stupidity(redundant statement).


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 17, 2016)

andaronjim said:


> Oh look he made it bigger thinking that this will sway us non believers over to his fanatical religion.


LOL no one cares what outlier clowns like you all believe..no one cares about your "Climate fraud" hysteria...no leaders believe that ...you all are isolated LOL

I love it ..*.what you all believe is OK with me* ...why would I care you all are un important ...what is important is what Science and the world leaders believe and they believe in AGW LOL


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 17, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Do you have any charts any links anything at all that is not simply monotonous repeating of your ignorant opinions...come on something anything ROFLMAO


----------



## jc456 (May 17, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > he has no idea what to believe, he is too busy looking for links and posting them up to show how smart he thinks he is.  he repeats the mumbo jumbo on queue all the time.  I laugh at the aggressiveness of it all.  Bolded greater fonts, like posting in that manner makes him more correct.  And yet, the 75 out 77 he can't ignore, cause he can't find anything to dispute that record.
> ...


and you still can't disprove the 75 out out 77.  I rest my case.  75 scientists state something and it's the globe.  Really, you think there are only 75 scientists on the globe working on climate studies?  dude it's hilarious.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (May 17, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...


 I guess you don't believe in the IPCC?  Only when they agree with you , then you like them?  Damn if that isn't double standards, because with out those, liberals would have no standards at all.  Now make sure you increase the font more, so we can see how penis envy you really are....


----------



## jc456 (May 17, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > Oh look he made it bigger thinking that this will sway us non believers over to his fanatical religion.
> ...


yeah, all 75 of them right? BTW, what is the global temperature?


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (May 17, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > Oh look he made it bigger thinking that this will sway us non believers over to his fanatical religion.
> ...


Wow, Tyrone, you have let slip your belief in Der Fuhrer.    I thought of this with what you just said.   Sieg Heil !!!!


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (May 17, 2016)

jc456 said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > andaronjim said:
> ...


It is the climate at which the liberal opens his front door, sticks up the index finger(that is the one next to the thumb) and says, Global Warming, global warming, global warming, there I said it 3 times, so it must be true.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 17, 2016)

andaronjim said:


> It is the climate at which the liberal opens his front door, sticks up the index finger(that is the one next to the thumb) and says, Global Warming, global warming, global warming, there I said it 3 times, so it must be true.


*Go back over my posts for links to Science...your opinions are rather stupid ...*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 17, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...



I don't have any charts showing the ideal global temperature.
Do you?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 17, 2016)

andaronjim said:


> Wow, Tyrone, you have let slip your belief in Der Fuhrer.    I thought of this with what you just said.   Sieg Heil !!!!
> 
> View attachment 75106


*Damn they played the "Hitler Card" on me at the Climatethreads wooooooooooooo hoooooooooooooooooooooooo because Science is the New Hitler ..............*


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 17, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I don't have any charts showing the ideal global temperature.
> Do you?


do you have any science to share that contradicts AGW...LOL


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 17, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > I don't have any charts showing the ideal global temperature.
> ...



What's AGW?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 17, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Asshole GOP Wastrels ...AGW


----------



## jc456 (May 17, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...


so nothing, hmmmmmmm


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 17, 2016)

jc456 said:


> so nothing, hmmmmmmm


Go to what I have been posting ...plenty of links LOL


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 17, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...



Asshole Global Warmers


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (May 17, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > Wow, Tyrone, you have let slip your belief in Der Fuhrer.    I thought of this with what you just said.   Sieg Heil !!!!
> ...


What you said , not science was why I said you reminded me of Hitler, sorry you are too stupid to know the difference.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 17, 2016)

andaronjim said:


> What you said , not science was why I said you reminded me of Hitler, sorry you are too stupid to know the difference.



People who believing Science are like Hitler I understand that ...you are a genius LOL


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (May 17, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > What you said , not science was why I said you reminded me of Hitler, sorry you are too stupid to know the difference.
> ...





> LOL no one cares what outlier clowns like you all believe..no one cares about your "Climate fraud" hysteria...no leaders believe that ...you all are isolated LOL
> 
> I love it ..*.what you all believe is OK with me* ...why would I care you all are un important ...what is important is what Science and the world leaders believe and they believe in AGW LOL


  Zieg Heil !!!  So if a world leader told you to jump into a active volcano to save the planet, you would oblige them?  Friggen lemming, that is what you are.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 17, 2016)

andaronjim said:


> Zieg Heil !!!  So if a world leader told you to jump into a active volcano to save the planet, you would oblige them?  Friggen lemming, that is what you are.


so if Exxon told you to jump off a cliff you would do it...


----------



## jc456 (May 17, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > Zieg Heil !!!  So if a world leader told you to jump into a active volcano to save the planet, you would oblige them?  Friggen lemming, that is what you are.
> ...


huh?


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (May 17, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > Zieg Heil !!!  So if a world leader told you to jump into a active volcano to save the planet, you would oblige them?  Friggen lemming, that is what you are.
> ...


Oh, not the Exxon evil corporation theme again, oh my....  No , I am someone who thinks for myself, not drink from the liberal kool aid that comes out of the rainbow house on Pennsylvania ave.   Why is it when the dinosaur was roaming the land, and the temperature there was much higher than it was here, do the "scientists" not add those temperatures into the figures?  Because is would show that the Earth has since been a lot cooler today.  But we cant use that because there was no industrial dinosaurs riding around in Automobiles having fun taking their families out on picnics and enjoying life.  Since liberals cannot be happy(unless they are fucking people who just want to be happy) they must force upon the rest of US their misery.  Then when everyone is poor and miserable, then that is "FAIRNESS".  It is the liberal way.  Shame you don't go jump into a very deep lake, dive down and hold your breath for 1000 seconds.  Then you would of decreased the CO2 footprint by 1 and start saving the planet.  Everytime I tell liberals they could save the planet this way, they tell me to go F ck  myself.  Don't liberals love the planet and should do whatever it takes to save it?  Take the first step, remove yourself from society , take a dive in the deepend.  Do the liberal thing.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 17, 2016)

andaronjim said:


> It is the climate at which the liberal opens his front door, sticks up the index finger(that is the one next to the thumb) and says, Global Warming, global warming, global warming, there I said it 3 times, so it must be true.



You are a clueless retard with your head up your ass, androgynoustwit.

Too bad you're far too stupid to have the mental capacity to recognize just how extremely stupid you are.


----------



## jc456 (May 17, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > It is the climate at which the liberal opens his front door, sticks up the index finger(that is the one next to the thumb) and says, Global Warming, global warming, global warming, there I said it 3 times, so it must be true.
> ...


what someone who loses an argument says...........


----------



## RollingThunder (May 17, 2016)

andaronjim said:


> It is the climate at which the liberal opens his front door, sticks up the index finger(that is the one next to the thumb) and says, Global Warming, global warming, global warming, there I said it 3 times, so it must be true.





RollingThunder said:


> You are a clueless retard with your head up your ass, androgynoustwit.
> 
> Too bad you're far too stupid to have the mental capacity to recognize just how extremely stupid you are.





jc456 said:


> what someone who loses an argument says...........



Well, JustCrazy, you'd be the expert on that, since you are constantly losing every argument.......it must really suck to be as severely retarded as you obviously are.


----------



## jc456 (May 17, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > It is the climate at which the liberal opens his front door, sticks up the index finger(that is the one next to the thumb) and says, Global Warming, global warming, global warming, there I said it 3 times, so it must be true.
> ...


what someone who loses an argument says....


----------



## RollingThunder (May 17, 2016)

andaronjim said:


> It is the climate at which the liberal opens his front door, sticks up the index finger(that is the one next to the thumb) and says, Global Warming, global warming, global warming, there I said it 3 times, so it must be true.





RollingThunder said:


> You are a clueless retard with your head up your ass, androgynoustwit.
> 
> Too bad you're far too stupid to have the mental capacity to recognize just how extremely stupid you are.





jc456 said:


> what someone who loses an argument says...........





RollingThunder said:


> Well, JustCrazy, you'd be the expert on that, since you are constantly losing every argument.......it must really suck to be as severely retarded as you obviously are.





jc456 said:


> what someone who loses an argument says....



What retards like JustCrazy say when they *have no argument*.


----------



## jc456 (May 17, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > It is the climate at which the liberal opens his front door, sticks up the index finger(that is the one next to the thumb) and says, Global Warming, global warming, global warming, there I said it 3 times, so it must be true.
> ...


And still WINNING


----------



## RollingThunder (May 18, 2016)

andaronjim said:


> It is the climate at which the liberal opens his front door, sticks up the index finger(that is the one next to the thumb) and says, Global Warming, global warming, global warming, there I said it 3 times, so it must be true.





RollingThunder said:


> You are a clueless retard with your head up your ass, androgynoustwit.
> 
> Too bad you're far too stupid to have the mental capacity to recognize just how extremely stupid you are.





jc456 said:


> what someone who loses an argument says...........





RollingThunder said:


> Well, JustCrazy, you'd be the expert on that, since you are constantly losing every argument.......it must really suck to be as severely retarded as you obviously are.





jc456 said:


> what someone who loses an argument says....





RollingThunder said:


> What retards like JustCrazy say when they *have no argument*.





jc456 said:


> And still WINNING


In your highly delusional excuse for a mind, JustCrazy, you imagine that you are "_winning_" something.....you not sure what, but it is certainly not this argument. More like the prize for the most retarded denier cult fool on the forum......you're winning that one hands down....against really stiff competition too....


----------



## elektra (May 18, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> In your highly delusional excuse for a mind, JustCrazy, you imagine that you are "_winning_" something.....you not sure what, but it is certainly not this argument. More like the prize for the most retarded denier cult fool on the forum......you're winning that one hands down....against really stiff competition too....


And you prove that people project, what you see in others, is who you are, a delusional, perverted, bigoted, redneck. It is funny, when I was young I never understood that there really were extreme lunatics in the World, but as I got old, and especially since the internet, I have learned alot. What these message boards and the internet have revealed, because you have anonymity to be yourself, what it has showed me is that all the bigoted hate that has been the history of America, is simply human nature and now you have found your own type of person to hate, in your bigoted mind. You are sick, the disease of mankind. You prove it with everyone of your posts.


----------



## SSDD (May 18, 2016)

elektra said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > In your highly delusional excuse for a mind, JustCrazy, you imagine that you are "_winning_" something.....you not sure what, but it is certainly not this argument. More like the prize for the most retarded denier cult fool on the forum......you're winning that one hands down....against really stiff competition too....
> ...



In real life thunder is probably a meek milquetoast sort who rarely speaks up for himself...he exhibits the sort of anger that terribly abused children exhibit when they grow up...even though the abuse is past, they remain intimidated by anyone and everyone with whom they perceive that they have any sort of conflict.  He can't enter a conversation with anyone and remain on an equal status once it is clear that they disagree....he becomes intimidated...begins calling names....shouts....and in general reverts to an angry 5 year old....  You have to feel sorry for people who underwent such abuse as children that they can't get past it as adults...


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (May 18, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > It is the climate at which the liberal opens his front door, sticks up the index finger(that is the one next to the thumb) and says, Global Warming, global warming, global warming, there I said it 3 times, so it must be true.
> ...


Now you have hurt my feelings.  Boo Hoo, typical of a liberal.  I am still waiting for someone to explain why the Arctic Ice is melting(above 32 degrees) yet polar votex's coming into America(caused by God) have temperatures below 32 degrees.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (May 18, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > It is the climate at which the liberal opens his front door, sticks up the index finger(that is the one next to the thumb) and says, Global Warming, global warming, global warming, there I said it 3 times, so it must be true.
> ...


----------



## jc456 (May 18, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > It is the climate at which the liberal opens his front door, sticks up the index finger(that is the one next to the thumb) and says, Global Warming, global warming, global warming, there I said it 3 times, so it must be true.
> ...


and yet you're arguing posts rather than topic.  That sir is an automatic winner for me. WINNING.  without back radiation, there is absolutely no way for CO2 to matter.  And when you can present evidence of back radiation, which you can't, then the discussion can move forward.  But calling me names is just a losers mentality.


----------



## SSDD (May 18, 2016)

jc456 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > andaronjim said:
> ...



Not only that, but even if back radiation existed...which it doesn't...it wouldn't matter anyway....Here is a conversation between an interested student and Dr Happer, a brilliant physicists.  Read this closely...the language is pretty straight forward...


*From:*David Burton
*Sent:* Wednesday, November 12, 2014 10:49 PM
*To:* William Happer
*Subject:* Another dumb question from Dave

Dear Prof. Happer,

At your UNC lecture you told us many things which I had not known, but two of them were these:

1. At low altitudes, the mean time between molecular collisions, through which an excited CO2 molecule can transfer its energy to another gas molecule (usually N2) is on the order of 1 nanosecond.

2. The mean decay time for an excited CO2 molecule to emit an IR photon is on the order of 1 second (a billion times as long).

Did I understand that correctly? [YES, PRECISELY. I ATTACH A PAPER ON RADIATIVE LIFETIMES OF CO2 FROM THE CO2 LASER COMMUNITY. YOU SHOULD LOOK AT THE BENDING-MODE TRANSITIONS, FOR EXAMPLE, 010 – 000. AS I THINK I MAY HAVE INDICATED ON SLIDE 24, THE RADIATIVE DECAY RATES FOR THE BENDING MODE ALSO DEPEND ON VIBRATION AND ROTATIONAL QUANTUM NUMBERS, AND THEY CAN BE A FEW ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE SLOWER THAN 1 S^{-1} FOR HIGHER EXCITED STATES. THIS IS BECAUSE OF SMALL MATRIX ELEMENTS FOR THE TRANSITION MOMENTS.]


You didn't mention it, but I assume H2O molecules have a similar decay time to emit an IR photon. Is that right, too? [YES. I CAN'T IMMEDIATELY FIND A SIMILAR PAPER TO THE ONE I ATTACHED ABOUT CO2, BUT THESE TRANSITIONS HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY STUDIED IN CONNECTION WITH INTERSTELLAR MASERS. I ATTACH SOME NICE VIEWGRAPHS THAT SUMMARIZE THE ISSUES, A FEW OF WHICH TOUCH ON H2O, ONE OF THE IMPORTANT INTERSTELLAR MOLECULES. ALAS, THE SLIDES DO NOT INCLUDE A TABLE OF LIFETIMES. BUT YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO TRACK THEM DOWN FROM REFERENCES ON THE VIEWGRAPHS IF YOU LIKE. ROUGHLY SPEAKING, THE RADIATIVE LIFETIMES OF ELECTRIC DIPOLE MOMENTS SCALE AS THE CUBE OF THE WAVELENTH AND INVERSELY AS THE SQUARE OF THE ELECTRIC DIPOLE MATRIX ELEMENT (FROM BASIC QUANTUM MECHANICS) SO IF AN ATOM HAS A RADIATIVE LIFETIME OF 16 NSEC AT A WAVELENGTH OF 0.6 MIRONS (SODIUM), A CO2 BENDING MODE TRANSITION, WITH A WAVELENGTH OF 15 MICRONS AND ABOUT 1/30 THE MATRIX ELEMENT SHOULD HAVE A LIFETIME OF ORDER 16 (30)^2 (15/.6)^3 NS = 0.2 S.


So, after a CO2 (or H2O) molecule absorbs a 15 micron IR photon, about 99.9999999% of the time it will give up its energy by collision with another gas molecule, notby re-emission of another photon. Is that true (assuming that I counted the right number of nines)? [YES, ABSOLUTELY.]


In other words, the very widely repeated description of GHG molecules absorbing infrared photons and then re-emitting them in random directions is only correct for about one absorbed photon in a billion. True? [YES, IT IS THIS EXTREME SLOWNESS OF RADIATIVE DECAY RATES THAT ALLOWS THE CO2 MOLECULES IN THE ATMOSPHERE TO HAVE VERY NEARLY THE SAME VIBRATION-ROTATION TEMPERATURE OF THE LOCAL AIR MOLECULES.]


Here's an example from the NSF, with a lovely animated picture, which even illustrates the correct vibrational mode:

Carbon Dioxide Absorbs and Re-emits Infrared Radiation | UCAR Center for Science Education







Am I correct in thinking that illustration is wrong for about 99.9999999% of the photons which CO2 absorbs in the lower troposphere? [YES, THE PICTURE IS A BIT MISLEADING. IF THE CO2 MOLECULE IN AIR ABSORBS A RESONANT PHOTON, IT IS MUCH MORE LIKELY ( ON THE ORDER OF A BILLION TIMES MORE LIKELY) TO HEAT THE SURROUNDING AIR MOLECULES WITH THE ENERGY IT ACQUIRED FROM THE ABSORBED PHOTON, THAN TO RERADIATE A PHOTON AT THE SAME OR SOME DIFFERENT FREQUENCY. IF THE CO2 MOLECULE COULD RADIATE COMPLETELY WITH NO COLLISIONAL INTERRUPTIONS, THE LENGTH OF THE RADIATIVE PULSE WOULD BE THE DISTANCE LIGHT CAN TRAVEL IN THE RADIATIVE LIFETIME. SO THE PULSE IN THE NSF FIGURE SHOULD BE 300,000 KM LONG, FROM THE EARTH'S SURFACE TO WELL BEYOND A SATELLITE IN GEOSYNCHRONOUS ORBIT. THE RADIATED PULSE SHOULD CONTAIN 667 CM^{-1} *3 X 10^{10} CM S^{-1}*1 S WAVES OR ABOUT 2 TRILLION WAVES, NOT JUST A FEW AS IN THE FIGURE. A BIT OF POETIC LICENSE IS OK. I CERTAINLY PLEAD GUILTY TO USING SOME ON MY VIEWGRAPHS. BUT WE SHOULD NOT MAKE TRILLION-DOLLAR ECONOMIC DECISIONS WITHOUT MORE QUANTITATIVE CONSIDERATION OF THE PHYSICS.]


(Aside: it doesn't really shock me that the NSF is wrong -- I previously caught them contradicting Archimedes: before & after.)

If that NSF web page & illustration were right, then the amount of IR emitted by CO2 or H2O vapor in the atmosphere would depend heavily on how much IR it received and absorbed. If more IR was emitted from the ground, then more IR would be re-emitted by the CO2 and H2O molecules, back toward the ground. But I think that must be wrong.[YES, THE AMOUNT OF RADIATION EMITTED BY GREENHOUSE MOLECULES DEPENDS ALMOST ENTIRELY ON THEIR TEMPERATURE. THE PERTRUBATION BY RADIATION COMING FROM THE GROUND OR OUTER SPACE IS NEGLIGIBLE. CO2 LASER BUILDERS GO OUT OF THEIR WAY WITH CUNNING DISCHARE PHYSICS TO GET THE CO2 MOLECULES OUT OF THERMAL EQUILIBRIUM SO THEY CAN AMPLIFY RADIATION.]


If 99.9999999% of the IR absorbed by atmospheric CO2 is converted by molecular collisions into heat, that seems to imply that the amount of ~15 micron IR emitted by atmospheric CO2 depends only on the atmosphere's temperature (and CO2 partial pressure), not on how the air got to that temperature. [YES, I COULD HAVE SAVED A COMMENT BY READING FURTHER.] Whether the ground is very cold and emits little IR, or very warm and emits lots of IR, will not affect the amount of IR emitted by the CO2 in the adjacent atmosphere (except by affecting the temperature of that air). Is that correct? [YES, PRECISELY. WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT WHAT CHANDRASEKHAR CALLS AN “ABSORBING ATMOSPHERE” AS OPPOSED TO A “SCATTERING ATMOSPHERE.” ASTROPHYSICISTS ARE OFTEN MORE INTERESTED IN SCATTERING ATMOSPHERES, LIKE THE INTERIOR OF THE SUN. THE BLUE SKY DURING A CLEAR DAY IS AN EXAMPLE OF SCATTERING ATMOSPHERE. VERY LITTLE HEATING OR COOLING OF THE AIR OCCURS WITH THIS “RAYLEIGH SCATTERING.”]


Thank you for educating a dumb old computer scientist like me! [YOU ARE HARDLY DUMB. YOU GET AN A+ FOR THIS RECITATION SESSION ON RADIATIVE TRANSFER. ]

What the professor is saying is that in other words; insofar as moving energy out of the atmosphere, convection rules....radiation is a bit player of such minute proportions that it hardly rates mention.  Even if back radiation existed...it wouldn't matter because only one in a billion energy exchanges between CO2 molecules and the other molecules residing in the atmosphere results in a photon being emitted....radiation is such a small player in the overall scheme of energy movement within the atmosphere that it really doesn't even matter....


----------



## RollingThunder (May 18, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> In your highly delusional excuse for a mind, JustCrazy, you imagine that you are "_winning_" something.....you not sure what, but it is certainly not this argument. More like the prize for the most retarded denier cult fool on the forum......you're winning that one hands down....against really stiff competition too....





elektra said:


> And you prove that people project, what you see in others, is who you are, a delusional, perverted, bigoted, redneck. It is funny, when I was young I never understood that there really were extreme lunatics in the World, but as I got old, and especially since the internet, I have learned alot. What these message boards and the internet have revealed, because you have anonymity to be yourself, what it has showed me is that all the bigoted hate that has been the history of America, is simply human nature and now you have found your own type of person to hate, in your bigoted mind. You are sick, the disease of mankind. You prove it with everyone of your posts.


And there is ol' Ejakulatra, another strong competitor for the prize of *the most retarded denier cult fool on the forum*, spewing her envy and hatred of everybody who demonstrates more intelligence and knowledge than she possibly ever could.


----------



## jc456 (May 18, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > In your highly delusional excuse for a mind, JustCrazy, you imagine that you are "_winning_" something.....you not sure what, but it is certainly not this argument. More like the prize for the most retarded denier cult fool on the forum......you're winning that one hands down....against really stiff competition too....
> ...


and still nothing related to the topic, more blunder losing.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 18, 2016)

SSDD said:


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



That was enlightening. The more science you learn, the more apparent that AGW is total bullshit


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 18, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


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



Don't look to SSDD for science, his confusion about physics harms our cause.


----------



## jc456 (May 18, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


And yet you can't prove back radiation now can you?  go ahead, ask me something instead of answering or actually providing proof.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 18, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



*And yet you can't prove back radiation now can you?
*
Stefan-Boltzmann is too complicated for you?
Are your photons magic? Or smart?


----------



## jc456 (May 18, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


why don't you post up the evidence that CO2 emits.

Why doesn't magic CO2 send back heat in a desert at night?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 18, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



the Stefan–Boltzmann law: "the total intensity radiated over all wavelengths increases as the temperature increases", of a black body which is proportional to the fourth power of the thermodynamic temperature.[1]
*
Why doesn't magic CO2 send back heat in a desert at night?*

It does. At night. During the day. On Christmas. On your birthday.


----------



## PredFan (May 18, 2016)

This just in.....

*Global Warming Scientists find evidence of Global Warming: get to keep jobs.
*
Details after these messages.....


----------



## jc456 (May 18, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


CO2 isn't a black body.


----------



## jc456 (May 18, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*Why doesn't magic CO2 send back heat in a desert at night?*

*It does. At night. During the day. On Christmas. On your birthday.*

Yeah that's why it's freezing.  yeppers that warm IR came down and warmed up the desert at night, oh wait, no it didn't cause it doesn't do that.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 18, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



So that means it emits zero energy? Or just less than a black body?
Does it absorb energy, or does it act like a mirror?


----------



## jc456 (May 18, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


it collides and loses it's energy, it never emits. and temperature also plays a factor in the collisions as it goes up.  it actually takes heat out of the atmosphere.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 18, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*Yeah that's why it's freezing.*

So low temperatures at night is your proof that CO2 doesn't emit toward the ground? Seems a bit thin.

Is that why night temps in the desert on Earth are the same as on the night side of the moon?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 18, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*it collides and loses it's energy, it never emits.*

Link?


----------



## jc456 (May 18, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*So low temperatures at night is your proof that CO2 doesn't emit toward the ground? *

I don't live on the moon.  Why would I care there?  and yes, one needs water vapor to maintain temps at night and that's due to humidity (water vapor) so yeah.

oh BTW, there isn't oxygen on the moon.

*Seems a bit thin.*
well I haven't seen anything from you on proof there is back radiation.


----------



## jc456 (May 18, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



How Could Anyone Deny Manmade Climate Change?

"So, after a CO2 (or H2O) molecule absorbs a 15 micron IR photon, about 99.9999999% of the time it will give up its energy by collision with another gas molecule, notby re-emission of another photon. Is that true (assuming that I counted the right number of nines)? [YES, ABSOLUTELY.]"


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 18, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*and yes, one needs water vapor to maintain temps at night and that's due to humidity (water vapor) so yeah.*

Water vapor radiates toward the ground? Why can't CO2 do the same?

*I don't live on the moon.  Why would I care there?
*
Because the moon disproves your claims.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 18, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*At low altitudes, the mean time between molecular collisions, through which an excited CO2 molecule can transfer its energy to another gas molecule (usually N2) is on the order of 1 nanosecond.
*
That means a CO2 molecule could also gain energy from another gas molecule (like N2) and then emit a photon toward the ground. Thanks for the tip.


----------



## Wyld Kard (May 18, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> Not at all. They don't have enough knowledge of science to be heretics, they are just stupid asses posting nonsense, like you.





> They don't have enough knowledge of science


And apparently you don't either, dumbass.    

The issue concerning global warming / climate change has always been much more about politics and whole less about actual science.



> they are just stupid asses posting nonsense,


I agree with that, when it comes to you the other nutjob warmists.


----------



## elektra (May 18, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > In your highly delusional excuse for a mind, JustCrazy, you imagine that you are "_winning_" something.....you not sure what, but it is certainly not this argument. More like the prize for the most retarded denier cult fool on the forum......you're winning that one hands down....against really stiff competition too....
> ...


Technically, I stick to what I know and dabble into a few other things. I do know Radiation, Molecules, not at a advanced degree level. So I do have that basic knowledge going for me. CO2 does not trap heat or raise the temperature of the Earth. 

Sea Level and Ice, I have learned about the Ice, and what a bunch of phoney baloney. 

Sea Level, now that is a great one, the ice cubes up at the top of the World will not make a bit of difference.

I also kept my eye on the news the last 40 some years, when the biggest worry was underarm deodorant and what a reversal the scientists have done since we got rid of aerosols. 

I also work in Commercial Nuclear Power Plants, so that gives the knowledge of the solution for Global Warming, which certainly is the biggest lie of them all, that building more solar and wind, building more as in 1,000's of square miles, using billions of tons of natural resources, will save the planet.

I also know human nature. In my opinion, if you lived during the days of the KKK, that would be who you are. Or if you grew up in NAZI Germany, that is who you would be. But you live now, so your bigotry is directed elsewhere. I say Bigotry simply because of the Language you bring to the table.

Yes, I dish it back, a bit. But technically it is who you are, being anonymous allows you to show your true feelings, and that is bigotry. Who would you hate if you did not have me? Conservatives? Those of us who see the AGW is a scam to sell Green, Clean, Renewable, Sustainable (how many names for a failure?), energy? 

We know that there is no man-made climate change, simply because the solution being implemented is destroying the World, the solution is using more Coal, using more Natural Gas, using more Iron, Steel, Copper, Silica. Your solution is to use more of our natural resources, faster than anytime in history, destroying the largest amount of land then any other time in history.

You must destroy the World to save the World? Which proves you are simply against mankind, society, and this has nothing to do with the Weather, which is what you call Climate Change.


----------



## elektra (May 18, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *At low altitudes, the mean time between molecular collisions, through which an excited CO2 molecule can transfer its energy to another gas molecule (usually N2) is on the order of 1 nanosecond.
> *
> That means a CO2 molecule could also gain energy from another gas molecule (like N2) and then emit a photon toward the ground. Thanks for the tip.


Technically, no. Maybe you can get CO2 to behave that way if bombarded by a particle accelerator, but not in the atmosphere. If that was the case we would all of died from radiation, a long time ago. 

The basic laws of physics, which is demonstrable, is simple, when an object hits another object, you lose energy, you do not gain energy. Certainly on paper the mathematics create a perfect situation where there is no energy loss, but in the real World there is, and somehow they have not been able to account for that on paper. But, it still happens. 

There is no energy emitted by CO2, after being bombarded by infrared radiation. Given how little CO2 is in the atmosphere, a good analogy is, if your car is hit by another car, it would have to travel another 100,000 miles before it hit another car.

Either way, the atmosphere attenuates, shields us, dampens all radiation from space, CO2's part of that process, only exists in a laboratory, it can not be proven outside of the laboratory. It can be assumed, at best.


----------



## Crick (May 18, 2016)

elektra said:


> Technically, no. Maybe you can get CO2 to behave that way if bombarded by a particle accelerator, but not in the atmosphere. If that was the case we would all of died from radiation, a long time ago.



Without that particular radiation, life on this planet would probably never have developed.



elektra said:


> The basic laws of physics, which is demonstrable, is simple, when an object hits another object, you lose energy, you do not gain energy.



Wow.  What basic law of physics would that be?  Perhaps you ought to think about the one that says neither energy nor matter can be created or destroyed.  A collision of two real world objects will result in a loss of kinetic energy in the objects but it will NOT result in a loss of energy.



elektra said:


> Certainly on paper the mathematics create a perfect situation where there is no energy loss, but in the real World there is, and somehow they have not been able to account for that on paper. But, it still happens.



Of course it's been accounted for.  Among real world objects, the loss is almost entirely converted to heat.  Among molecules and photons, the processes are called Stokes, Raman and Compton Scattering.  The kinetic energy lost typically results in increased frequencies of the photons involved.



elektra said:


> There is no energy emitted by CO2, after being bombarded by infrared radiation.



Don't be stupid.  Of course there is.



elektra said:


> Given how little CO2 is in the atmosphere, a good analogy is, if your car is hit by another car, it would have to travel another 100,000 miles before it hit another car.



There are enough collisions that 1 atm CO2 stops all in-band IR in a matter of a few meters.  So, again, don't be stupid.



elektra said:


> Either way, the atmosphere attenuates, shields us, dampens all radiation from space, CO2's part of that process, only exists in a laboratory, it can not be proven outside of the laboratory. It can be assumed, at best.



Wrong:    *Evans 2006*
Here is the brief version of the paper's abstract.  There is an extended version at the link. The full paper may be read at  https://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/100737.pdf

The earth's climate system is warmed by 35 C due to the emission of downward infrared radiation by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (surface radiative forcing) or by the absorption of upward infrared radiation (radiative trapping). Increases in this emission/absorption are the driving force behind global warming. Climate models predict that the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere has altered the radiative energy balance at the earth's surface by several percent by increasing the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere. With measurements at high spectral resolution, this increase can be quantitatively attributed to each of several anthropogenic gases. Radiance spectra of the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere have been measured at ground level from several Canadian sites using FTIR spectroscopy at high resolution. The forcing radiative fluxes from CFC11, CFC12, CCl4, HNO3, O3, N2O, CH4, CO and CO2 have been quantitatively determined over a range of seasons. The contributions from stratospheric ozone and tropospheric ozone are separated by our measurement techniques. A comparison between our measurements of surface forcing emission and measurements of radiative trapping absorption from the IMG satellite instrument shows reasonable agreement. The experimental fluxes are simulated well by the FASCOD3 radiation code. This code has been used to calculate the model predicted increase in surface radiative forcing since 1850 to be 2.55 W/m2. In comparison, an ensemble summary of our measurements indicates that an energy flux imbalance of 3.5 W/m2 has been created by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases since 1850.
*This experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming*.
*******************************************************************************
The graph below is a direct measurement of that backradiation that some of your fellow deniers here claim doesn't exist or can't be measured.  The radiation from water vapor has been filtered out so that the effects of other gases may be seen.  We can see carbon dioxide (CO2), two varieties of freon (CFC11 and CFC12), nitric acid (HNO3), nitrous oxide (N2O) ozone (O3), methane (CH4) and carbon monoxide (CO).






As you can see, CO2 makes a large contribution to the total effect.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 18, 2016)

elektra said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *At low altitudes, the mean time between molecular collisions, through which an excited CO2 molecule can transfer its energy to another gas molecule (usually N2) is on the order of 1 nanosecond.
> ...



*The basic laws of physics, which is demonstrable, is simple, when an object hits another object, you lose energy, you do not gain energy.
*
CO2 can lose energy if it hits N2 but can't gain energy it N2 hits it? Are you sure?


----------



## elektra (May 18, 2016)

andaronjim said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > andaronjim said:
> ...


That is the Pennsylvanian Period, that the Liberal thinking comes from.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 18, 2016)

elektra said:


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


----------



## elektra (May 18, 2016)

Crick said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Technically, no. Maybe you can get CO2 to behave that way if bombarded by a particle accelerator, but not in the atmosphere. If that was the case we would all of died from radiation, a long time ago.
> ...


Without radiation from CO2 life never would of developed? You need a brain to engage in this conversation, crick, go get one.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 18, 2016)

* *
* *
* A YEAR IN THE RED*
*I think most climate scientists are surprised at the speed that it’s happening,” she said. “But at the same time, with emissions peaking again last year... everything was pointing to an increased temperature. It’s the amount by which the records are being broken, not the fact that the record’s being broken, that’s really striking.*
*

*


----------



## elektra (May 19, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Energy or Radiation? N2 is not emitting radiation, is it? Any energy transferred or absorbed by CO2 will be emitted will be less when emitted.

The Science only speaks of infrared radiation being absorbed by CO2, and emitted. N2 does not absorb IR, nor emit IR.

On the atomic level, the distance between CO2 molecules is huge, if a CO2 molecule was a mile wide, it would be 2500 miles between each CO2 molecule, that leaves a lot of space, for heat to escape, and little space for heat to be trapped.

Either way, that damn Sun is one hot son of a bitch and its energy level does vary which is never accounted for in Global Warming studies. Is the Sun's intensity the same today as it was 100 years ago? Temperature on Earth hardly tells the complete story of that, especially if we only measure one wavelength or spectrum of the radiation emitted by the Sun.

Anyhow, I thinks most people ignore N2, as having zero influence from IR.


----------



## SSDD (May 19, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> * *
> * *
> * A YEAR IN THE RED*
> *I think most climate scientists are surprised at the speed that it’s happening,” she said. “But at the same time, with emissions peaking again last year... everything was pointing to an increased temperature. It’s the amount by which the records are being broken, not the fact that the record’s being broken, that’s really striking.*
> ...



Isn't it interesting how in the world of climate science, the places with the least instrumental coverage, and therefore the places that reflect the most "filling in" of temperatures are the warmest places on earth?


----------



## SSDD (May 19, 2016)

elektra said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...



They get all worked up into a global warming religious frenzy and forget that unless the energy is of a certain frequency, radiative energy transfer doesn't happen....


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 19, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Isn't it interesting how in the world of climate science, the places with the least instrumental coverage, and therefore the places that reflect the most "filling in" of temperatures are the warmest places on earth?


*Go ahead dude put up your temperature record LOL*


----------



## Crick (May 19, 2016)

SSDD said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > * *
> ...




What do you think is happening?  Little hotspots that follow thermometers around?  Oh, wait, let me guess.  You think everyone is lying.  Back to the grand conspiracy.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 19, 2016)

SSDD said:


> They get all worked up into a global warming religious frenzy and forget that unless the energy is of a certain frequency, radiative energy transfer doesn't happen....


You are very much welcome to post anything that backs up your position.  Simply repeating your position over and over does not do the job...we all know what your position is now back it up..


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 19, 2016)

Crick said:


> What do you think is happening?  Little hotspots that follow thermometers around?  Oh, wait, let me guess.  You think everyone is lying.  Back to the grand conspiracy.


They come up with all kinds of creative criticism of science...what they do not come up with is data links or anything else that backs those opinions up..they actually pretend they have better science and data than NASA etc but they never post it...


----------



## jc456 (May 19, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


*Water vapor radiates toward the ground?*

it does?


----------



## jc456 (May 19, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


dude, I couldn't careless what you believe.  If you believe that then you must believe in AGW and that the 'A' does mean we affect the climate.  I laugh at that. Sorry, cause no one can prove it.  still zip on that one bubba.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 19, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


And that kind of blind denial of reality is why everyone knows you to be a clueless delusional troll, JustCrazy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 19, 2016)

elektra said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...



*Energy or Radiation? N2 is not emitting radiation, is it?
*
We were talking about CO2 transferring energy to N2 by collision.
N2 can't transfer energy to CO2 by collision? Are you sure?

*Any energy transferred or absorbed by CO2 will be emitted will be less when emitted.
*
Energy is lost? I don't believe you.

*that leaves a lot of space, for heat to escape, and little space for heat to be trapped.
*
Thank goodness.


----------



## jc456 (May 19, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


and there it is more WINNING for me.  Thanks for the insult.  I still see you can't post factual information.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 19, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Yes. Is this the first time you've heard that?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 19, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



*If you believe that then you must believe in AGW
*
Wrong.


----------



## jc456 (May 19, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


prove it then.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 19, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



She's a moron, but at least she doesn't want to waste trillions on windmills.


----------



## jc456 (May 19, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


sure!


----------



## RollingThunder (May 19, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...





RollingThunder said:


> And that kind of blind denial of reality is why everyone knows you to be a clueless delusional troll, JustCrazy.





jc456 said:


> and there it is more WINNING for me.  Thanks for the insult.  I still see you can't post factual information.


Nope! No winning! That is just some more delusional trolling of yours, you poor retarded wacko.

You can't handle "_factual information_", troll. As you will now demonstrate by freaking out and gibbering denier cult nonsense.

Here's the facts about what is happening with the climate....

Following the previous 'hottest year on record' in 2005, the title was taken by 2010....then a few years later, 2014 became the new 'hottest year on record'.....but lost that title immediately to 2015.....and now 2016 is on track to be the next new 'hottest year on record'......which would make three record years in a row, which would be a record in itself.....and that is just calendar years....scientists also look at the significance of any 12 month period or 'year'......so now we are looking at the hottest twelve consecutive months on record since 1880....with, uniquely, every individual month in that period also breaking the instrumental temperature record for that month as well....on top of rapidly melting ice all around the world, a new record low Arctic ice extent and volume coming in September, torrential storms with heavy flooding, and accelerating sea level rise, plus many other climate disruptions and changes. That's the situation America and the world are currently facing. This summer will almost certainly see record breaking heat waves and storms across most of the USA and a number of other countries. We will be going into the November elections with all of that evidence of the reality of global warming/climate change fresh in the minds of American voters.....and they will look at the head-in-the-sand, reality-denying refusal to accept the scientific facts about human caused global warming and its consequent climate changes spewing from the Republi*con* Congressional and Presidential candidates and they will laugh at those bozos and vote them out of office.......

*We Just Completed A Full Year Of Record-Hot Months
"I'm just in shock," says one climate scientist. "I wish it weren't so."*
The Huffington Post
Lydia OConnor
05/18/2016
(excerpts)
*For the 12th month in a row, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has announced record-high global temperatures -- marking a yearlong heat streak that scientists say is grim sign of climate change in action. April 2016 was the hottest April ever recorded by NOAA since it started tracking global temperatures in 1880, the agency announcedWednesday. This is the 12th consecutive month the agency has identified a monthly global temperature record. That's the longest such streak NOAA has ever recorded. "The April temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 1.98°F above the 20th century average of 56.7°F," NOAA announced. "This was the highest for April in the 1880-2016 record, surpassing the previous record set in 2010 by 0.50°F." 

Those temperatures are staggering, climatologists say. "It's pretty striking," said Dr. Astrid Caldas, a climate scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists and a Huffington Post contributor. "I'm just in shock. I wish it weren't so." Dr. Caldas noted that she didn't expect the planet would arrive at this point so quickly. "I think most climate scientists are surprised at the speed that its happening," she said. "But at the same time, with emissions peaking again last year... everything was pointing to an increased temperature. It's the amount by which the records are being broken, not the fact that the records being broken, that's really striking."





NOAA

"I think it is quite clear that climate change has played a key role in several record weather events during the past year, including record strength hurricanes (both the Northern and Southern hemisphere saw their most intense hurricanes on record during the past year), an unprecedented, still ongoing California drought, and raging Canadian wildfires unlike anything we've seen so early in the fire season," Dr. Michael Mann, a climate scientist and director of Pennsylvania State University's Earth System Science Center, wrote. "And that's just a few examples." Dr. Astrid Caldas pointed to the floods in Texas and Oklahoma last May. "They have the signature of climate change," she said, noting that warmer weather allows the atmosphere to hold more moisture. "The heavy downpours are getting heavier." The recent widespread coral bleaching, she added, has been linked to water temperatures being so high that coral is losing the ability to cope.

Given the United States critical role in the Paris agreement, its crucial that the next presidential administration continue taking the lead on climate issues, Dr. Mann said. "We will need to decide in this next presidential election whether we want to continue the progress that the current administration has made, or throw it all away by electing a climate change denier president," he wrote. "The fate of the Earth does quite literally lie in the balance."*
(Read more at website)


----------



## jc456 (May 19, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


do you deny that adjustments were made to the data you just posted?


----------



## RollingThunder (May 19, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...





RollingThunder said:


> And that kind of blind denial of reality is why everyone knows you to be a clueless delusional troll, JustCrazy.





jc456 said:


> and there it is more WINNING for me.  Thanks for the insult.  I still see you can't post factual information.





RollingThunder said:


> Nope! No winning! That is just some more delusional trolling of yours, you poor retarded wacko.
> 
> You can't handle "_factual information_", troll. As you will now demonstrate by freaking out and gibbering denier cult nonsense.
> 
> ...





jc456 said:


> do you deny that adjustments were made to the data you just posted?


Do you deny that you are a clueless retard who doesn't know squat about science and actually holds the crackpot belief that a giant world-wide conspiracy of climate scientists Is fraudulently "_adjusting_" the data to exaggerate the CO2 driven warming?


----------



## jc456 (May 19, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


are you going to answer or not?  do you deny that adjustments were made to the data you posted?


----------



## jc456 (May 19, 2016)

Manual Adjustments in the Temperature Record | Climate Skeptic

"The NOAA HAS made adjustments to US temperature data over the last few years that has increased the apparent warming trend.  These changes in adjustments have not been well-explained.  In fact, they have not really be explained at all, and have only been detected by skeptics who happened to archive old NOAA charts and created comparisons like the one below.  Here is the before and after animation (pre-2000 NOAA US temperature history vs. post-2000).  History has been cooled and modern temperatures have been warmed from where they were being shown previously by the NOAA.  This does not mean the current version  is wrong, but since the entire US warming signal was effectively created by these changes, it is not unreasonable to act for a detailed reconciliation (particularly when those folks preparing the chart all believe that temperatures are going up, so would be predisposed to treating a flat temperature chart like the earlier"


----------



## elektra (May 19, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> And that kind of blind denial of reality is why everyone knows you to be a clueless delusional troll, JustCrazy.


Yet, SoilingBlunder, your reply is a troll, a flame?


----------



## RollingThunder (May 19, 2016)

jc456 said:


> toiletpaper://www.*climate-skeptic.com*/2015/02/manual-adjustments-in-the-temperature-record.html']Manual Adjustments in the Temperature Record | Climate Skeptic
> 
> "The NOAA HAS made adjustments to US temperature data over the last few years that has increased the apparent warming trend.  These changes in adjustments have not been well-explained.  In fact, they have not really be explained at all...



And here's where the troll JustCrazy does the usual denier cult thing of citing bogus denier cult blogs for his sources of supposed 'evidence'. This time it is obvious lies from another denier blog, aimed at the ignorant rightwingnut ideologues...

"_These changes in adjustments have not been well-explained.  In fact, they have not really be explained at all..._" is such complete bullshit right from the start, you know everything after that is fraudulent.

In fact, in the real world, the reasons for the scientific adjustments to the raw instrumental data records have been explained in great detail and are quite valid scientifically. You denier cult dingbats just prefer to keep your heads jammed up your asses rather than learn anything that would destroy your crackpot myths. So, of course, you won't read these articles. Others will, and they will see how utterly corrupt and crazy you are, JustCrazy.

*Thorough, not thoroughly fabricated: The truth about global temperature data*
*How thermometer and satellite data is adjusted and why it must be done. *
ArsTechnica
by Scott K. Johnson
Jan 21, 2016

*No climate conspiracy: NOAA temperature adjustments bring data closer to pristine*
*A new study finds that NOAA temperature adjustments are doing exactly what they’re supposed to*
The Guardian
Dana Nuccitelli
8 February 2016


----------



## elektra (May 19, 2016)

Seems they have fought over weather a long time!


POINTS ON TEMPERATURE — Los Angeles Herald 21 February 1895 — California Digital Newspaper Collection


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 19, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




And by "confusion" you mean his insistence that heat travels from warm to cold, right?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 19, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



His belief that photons don't travel toward matter warmer than the source.


----------



## jc456 (May 19, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


so what is your belief that happens to that warmer matter when traveling photons from a cooler object hits it?


----------



## RollingThunder (May 19, 2016)

jc456 said:


> toiletpaper://www.*climate-skeptic.com*/2015/02/manual-adjustments-in-the-temperature-record.html']Manual Adjustments in the Temperature Record | Climate Skeptic
> 
> "The NOAA HAS made adjustments to US temperature data over the last few years that has increased the apparent warming trend.  These changes in adjustments have not been well-explained.  In fact, they have not really be explained at all...





RollingThunder said:


> And here's where the troll JustCrazy does the usual denier cult thing of citing bogus denier cult blogs for his sources of supposed 'evidence'. This time it is obvious lies from another denier blog, aimed at the ignorant rightwingnut ideologues...
> 
> "_These changes in adjustments have not been well-explained.  In fact, they have not really be explained at all..._" is such complete bullshit right from the start, you know everything after that is fraudulent.
> 
> ...



And....as usual....the anti-science deniers run away from the scientific evidence that debunks their fraudulent myths.


----------



## jc456 (May 19, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > toiletpaper://www.*climate-skeptic.com*/2015/02/manual-adjustments-in-the-temperature-record.html']Manual Adjustments in the Temperature Record | Climate Skeptic
> ...


dude, I've been waiting to see your scientific evidence.  where is it?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 19, 2016)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



*so what is your belief that happens to that warmer matter when traveling photons from a cooler object hits it?*

The same thing that always happens whenever photons hit matter.
Regardless of the temperature of the emitter.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 19, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



It's not "his belief" as you state it, it might actually be one of them there fundamental laws of physics


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 19, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Yes, his belief proves he is confused about fundamental laws of physics.
At least he doesn't want to waste trillions on windmills, so he still has that going for him.
His ignorance does hurt our cause though........


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 19, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



So you're saying that the whole "heat moving from warmer to cooler" notion only applies under certain conditions?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 19, 2016)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Absolutely not. I'm saying his belief in "smart photons" or "smart emitters" is beyond moronic.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 19, 2016)

jc456 said:


> toiletpaper://www.*climate-skeptic.com*/2015/02/manual-adjustments-in-the-temperature-record.html']Manual Adjustments in the Temperature Record | Climate Skeptic
> 
> "The NOAA HAS made adjustments to US temperature data over the last few years that has increased the apparent warming trend.  These changes in adjustments have not been well-explained.  In fact, they have not really be explained at all...





RollingThunder said:


> And here's where the troll JustCrazy does the usual denier cult thing of citing bogus denier cult blogs for his sources of supposed 'evidence'. This time it is obvious lies from another denier blog, aimed at the ignorant rightwingnut ideologues...
> 
> "_These changes in adjustments have not been well-explained.  In fact, they have not really be explained at all..._" is such complete bullshit right from the start, you know everything after that is fraudulent.
> 
> ...





RollingThunder said:


> And....as usual....the anti-science deniers run away from the scientific evidence that debunks their fraudulent myths.





jc456 said:


> dude, I've been waiting to see your scientific evidence.  where is it?



Well, as I just said: "_You denier cult dingbats just prefer to keep your heads jammed up your asses rather than learn anything that would destroy your crackpot myths. So, of course, you won't read these articles._".....so of course, you kept your firmly jammed up your ass and didn't even look at the evidence offered to you......which is what you always do, BTW, you flaming moron......if you *had* read those articles, which debunk your denier cult myths about scientific 'adjustments' equalling 'fakery', you would have seen, among other evidence, _this_ _"_ scientific evidence".....(something you are always demanding but can never yourself provide to support your crackpot reality denial bullshit).....

*Evaluating the impact of U.S. Historical Climatology Network homogenization using the U.S. Climate Reference Network*
*Geophysical Research Letters (Journal of the American Geophysical Union)*
Authors: Zeke Hausfather, Kevin Cowtan, Matthew J. Menne, Claude N. Williams Jr.
25 February 2016
DOI: 10.1002/2015GL067640


----------



## Markle (May 19, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


>


----------



## Markle (May 19, 2016)

Has to be one of the most bizarre threads I've ever seen on the Global Warming hoax.

Our far left Progressive good friend, Tyroneslothrop, has gone off the rails entirely.  Easy to tell he knows he has the losing side of the discussion.  He screams, hollers, calls names, profanity and no facts other than those he scrounges from...agencies which profit HUGELY from the scam.

I see no reason why anyone responds to him or his cabal.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 19, 2016)

Markle said:


> Has to be one of the most bizarre threads I've ever seen on the Global Warming hoax.
> 
> Our far left Progressive good friend, Tyroneslothrop, has gone off the rails entirely.  Easy to tell he knows he has the losing side of the discussion.  He screams, hollers, calls names, profanity and no facts other than those he scrounges from...agencies which profit HUGELY from the scam.
> 
> I see no reason why anyone responds to him or his cabal.


Science is on my side ...who or what is on your side


----------



## tinydancer (May 19, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Has to be one of the most bizarre threads I've ever seen on the Global Warming hoax.
> ...



The earth has had five ice ages. Would you like to explain how the earth warmed in between?

Climate change has been around for 5 million years. 






Ice age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Crick (May 19, 2016)

Milankovitch cycles.


----------



## Old Rocks (May 19, 2016)

_*Milankovitch Cycles and Glaciation

Milankovitch Cycles and Glaciation*_

The episodic nature of the Earth's glacial and interglacial periods within the present Ice Age (the last couple of million years) have been caused primarily by cyclical changes in the Earth's circumnavigation of the Sun. Variations in the Earth's eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession comprise the three dominant cycles, collectively known as the Milankovitch Cyclesfor Milutin Milankovitch, the Serbian astronomer and mathematician who is generally credited with calculating their magnitude. Taken in unison, variations in these three cycles creates alterations in the seasonality of solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface. These times of increased or decreased solar radiation directly influence the Earth's climate system, thus impacting the advance and retreat of Earth's glaciers.

It is of primary importance to explain that climate change, and subsequent periods of glaciation, resulting from the following three variables is *not due to the total amount of solar energy reaching Earth*. The three Milankovitch Cycles impact the *seasonality and location** of solar energy* around the Earth, thus impacting contrasts between the seasons.

*Here is the explanation of the periodic glaciation. However, there is much more to it than just this. At the peak of the glaciations, the CO2 levels were about 180 ppm, at the peak of the interglacials, the CO2 levels were at 280 to 300 ppm. *


----------



## RollingThunder (May 19, 2016)

Markle said:


> Has to be one of the most bizarre threads I've ever seen on the Global Warming hoax.
> 
> Our far left Progressive good friend, Tyroneslothrop, has gone off the rails entirely.  Easy to tell he knows he has the losing side of the discussion.  He screams, hollers, calls names, profanity and no facts other than those he scrounges from...agencies which profit HUGELY from the scam.
> 
> I see no reason why anyone responds to him or his cabal.





TyroneSlothrop said:


> Science is on my side ...who or what is on your side


Well, since ol' EasyMark is a flaming denier cult troll, all he has on his side is the usual stupidity, ignorance and insanity, common to the denier cult dingbats. Plus the usual idiotic arrogance and mistaken conviction that he is smarter and knows more then all of the real scientists on the planet.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 20, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> the usual idiotic arrogance and mistaken conviction that he is smarter and knows more then all of the real scientists on the planet.


That is what I find striking about these folks.  They are not only ignorant they are arrogant and mindless about being ignorant.  They actually seem to think* their pronouncements outrank what Science says about AGW. * They demand raw data so "they" can determine if "there is AGW supporting data" as though that was something in question...I think that they are "a hoot"


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 20, 2016)

tinydancer said:


> The earth has had five ice ages. Would you like to explain how the earth warmed in between?
> 
> Climate change has been around for 5 million years.
> 
> Ice age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


*What does past climate change tell us about global warming?*
Climate's changed before
_Climate is always changing. We have had ice ages and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen. Ice ages have occurred in a hundred thousand year cycle for the last 700 thousand years, and there have been previous periods that appear to have been warmer than the present despite CO2 levels being lower than they are now. More recently, we have had the medieval warm period and the little ice age. (Richard Lindzen)_
*What the science says...*
  Greenhouse gasses, principally CO2, have controlled most ancient climate changes. This time around humans are the cause, mainly by our CO2 emissions.
there have been *several times in Earth’s past *when Earth's temperature jumped abruptly, in much the same way as they are doing today. Those times were caused by large and rapid greenhouse gas emissions, just like humans are causing today. 

Those *abrupt global warming events were almost always highly destructive* for life, causing mass extinctions such as at the end of the Permian, Triassic, or even mid-Cambrian periods. The symptoms from those events (a big, rapid jump in global temperatures, rising sea levels, and ocean acidification) are all happening today with human-caused climate change.


*So yes, the climate has changed before humans, and in most cases scientists know why. In all cases we see the same association between CO2 levels and global temperatures. And past examples of rapid carbon emissions (just like today) were generally highly destructive to life on Earth.*


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 20, 2016)

One can certainly argue that Science is wrong ..*.it has been wrong before* however it has mechanism to correct errors and it corrects them ...
*Science was wrong for many years on the cause of stomach ulcers*.  It was the Orthodox Medical thesis that stomach ulcers were the result of excess stomach acid related to stress...One Doctor scientist discovered it was really being caused by the H Pylori bacteria in the digestive tract.  He went through a long struggle before his theory on the cause of ulcers came to be accepted and it was proven through the Scientific method that he was correct as to the cause of ulcers....

One can argue that Science is corrupt...however when making such a charge *one ought to have at least rudimentary evidence that this is so ...*

*what one cannot argue is that Science today May 20, 2016 does not  supports the theory of AGW.... It does support AGW  Right wrong or in between...*


----------



## gipper (May 20, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Has to be one of the most bizarre threads I've ever seen on the Global Warming hoax.
> ...


No.  Government money is on your side.  You must know the old saying made famous by lefty pols....'when you subsidize something, you get more of it.'

AGW is a transparent effort to grow and centralize government, but it easily dupes lefties.  

Lefties...they love group think and corrupt pols know it.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 20, 2016)

gipper said:


> No.  Government money is on your side.


Oil money is on your side...your side is not exactly known for honesty or any lack of MERCENARY motives...It not just the US Government its the whole gamut of Science ...*only a committed  "Jaboony" would say "its not science its the Government"*


----------



## gipper (May 20, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > No.  Government money is on your side.
> ...


Well it is time to grow up my son.  Government is the source of all evil...now learn it.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 20, 2016)

gipper said:


> [
> Well it is time to grow up my son.  Government is the source of all evil...now learn it.


 Here is what I mean "Arrogant and Stupid" LOL  mother fucker when a disaster strikes punks like you whine for the government lol


----------



## gipper (May 20, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


No my boy....the last thing we want is government doing ANYTHING...its time to grow up now...be a man...take care of yourself you winy little bitch.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 20, 2016)

gipper said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...


You be a man and stop pretending you are more adult etc ..you are just another  Right wing piece of shit to me LOL


----------



## Old Rocks (May 20, 2016)

Ol' Gipper, just another lying asshole. Just like that governor of Texas that liked to talk of succession, but when Texas was on fire, was crying, kicking and screaming for federal aid to fight the fires.


----------



## gipper (May 20, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...


And you are just a left wing piece of shit to me, but I still love you BOY.   Even should you blow my brains out, which you lefties are wont to do, I will still love....my boy.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 20, 2016)

gipper said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...


I do not own any guns and I reject homicide as totally wrong


----------



## gipper (May 20, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > TyroneSlothrop said:
> ...


Means nothing...your big gov that you love so much, will do the dirty deed for you and it will make you happy.


----------



## rdean (May 20, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> ● “El Nino could make 2015 ‘the hottest year on record’… and 2016 will be even hotter.”
> —Headline, London _Independent,_ September 14, 2015.
> 
> 
> ...


The same way people deny the earth is billions of years old.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 20, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > No.  Government money is on your side.
> ...



*Oil money is on your side...*

Oh no, money earned providing the most vital commodity in the world. Just terrible.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 20, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Oil money is on your side...*
> 
> Oh no, money earned providing the most vital commodity in the world. Just terrible.



Oh no the Government ..the one that gives you warning so you can protect yourself from Hurricanes and tornadoes and wild fires ...and fights the wild fires ...down with Government...*fucking mental anti Govt Mental midgets* ...


----------



## gipper (May 20, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Oil money is on your side...*
> ...


Only a lib like you, would need the government to tell you to protect yourself from hurricanes, tornadoes, and wild fires....cause you can't think for yourself.

If you drink this, you might be a liberal.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 20, 2016)

Markle said:


> Has to be one of the most bizarre threads I've ever seen on the Global Warming hoax.
> 
> Our far left Progressive good friend, Tyroneslothrop, has gone off the rails entirely.  Easy to tell he knows he has the losing side of the discussion.  He screams, hollers, calls names, profanity and no facts other than those he scrounges from...agencies which profit HUGELY from the scam.
> 
> I see no reason why anyone responds to him or his cabal.





TyroneSlothrop said:


> Science is on my side ...who or what is on your side





gipper said:


> No.  Government money is on your side.  You must know the old saying made famous by lefty pols....'when you subsidize something, you get more of it.' AGW is a transparent effort to grow and centralize government, but it easily dupes lefties. Lefties...they love group think and corrupt pols know it.


LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL..........and another hilariously insane, totally ignorant, rightwingnut denier cult wacko pops up with more deranged anti-science crackpot conspiracy theory bullshit. This one is so crazy, he doesn't even recognize the existence of science.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 20, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Oil money is on your side...*
> ...



And giving money to political donors. That's always good. LOL!


----------



## IanC (May 20, 2016)

No one should deny man-made climate change. It's a fact.

Nor should anyone wildly exaggerate it, or make ridiculous claims about it's effects.

West Antarctica glaciers are collapsing because of a few tenths of a degree change in the air? For a few decades? Gimme a break! Or a few hundredths in the ocean? Absurd! 

The scale of man-made change is puny. The claims are absolutely huge. 

There are laws against shouting FIRE in public places to start a panic. They should be used against the media and public figures who make up and broadcast unsupported Forecasts of Doom to the public.


----------



## jc456 (May 20, 2016)

IanC said:


> No one should deny man-made climate change. It's a fact.
> 
> Nor should anyone wildly exaggerate it, or make ridiculous claims about it's effects.
> 
> ...


*No one should deny man-made climate change. It's a fact.*

It is?  It's a fact?  holy crap Ian.  wow.  what are the facts?

If we can, why can't we make it rain when we need it?

BTW, I deny it.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 20, 2016)

IanC said:


> No one should deny man-made climate change. It's a fact.


Good! You're making progress.







IanC said:


> Nor should anyone wildly exaggerate it, or make ridiculous claims about it's effects.


Oops. Now you're back to your old anti-science denier cult insanity.








IanC said:


> West Antarctica glaciers are collapsing...


...an *observed, measured reality*, numbnuts, which is not dispelled by your ignorant hand waving and clueless objections.








IanC said:


> The scale of man-made change is puny. The claims are absolutely huge.


More anti-science denier cult bullshit! Based entirely on a denial of reality and scientific facts because of your rightwingnut ideological insanities.








IanC said:


> There are laws against shouting FIRE in public places to start a panic. They should be used against the media and public figures who make up and broadcast unsupported Forecasts of Doom to the public.


The climate scientists' warnings about the future consequenses of global warming are accurate and based on the best science after many decades of research and study. They know almost infinitely more about this matter than you do, you silly troll, but you are deluded enough to imagine that you are competent to critique their conclusions. LOLOLOL.

The real crime here is the fossil fuel industry stooges who have a vested financial interest in lying to people and telling them there is no "FIRE" and they should keep their seats when, in fact, the whole place is on fire and the ceiling is about to collapse and kill a lot of people.

In the real world of consequences for our actions.....

*Global Warming Impacts
The consequences of climate change are already here.*


----------



## IanC (May 20, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > No one should deny man-made climate change. It's a fact.
> ...




Any and everything we do has an impact. Land use, water use, what we put into the air.

Surely you are not denying that we do these things?

Every action causes a ripple. The magnitude and direction is yet to be determined.


----------



## gipper (May 20, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Has to be one of the most bizarre threads I've ever seen on the Global Warming hoax.
> ...


Global warming is NOT science, it is politics...left wing Marxist NWO politics. Even a nitwit not brainwashed by leftist BS, can figure it out...but of course, left wing nitwits can't.  they get duped every time.


----------



## jc456 (May 20, 2016)

IanC said:


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


with climate?  hmmmm I'll disagree with you there.  I tell you, I'd love for it to be ten degrees warmer in Chitown today and everyday it's under 70 degrees.  Yet miraculously I can't.


----------



## IanC (May 20, 2016)

jc456 said:


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




You don't agree that agricultural land has a different climate than what it replaced? How about cities? Dams? Aerosols in the air, soot on the ice? Etc?


----------



## RollingThunder (May 20, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Science is on my side ...who or what is on your side





gipper said:


> No.  Government money is on your side.  You must know the old saying made famous by lefty pols....'when you subsidize something, you get more of it.' AGW is a transparent effort to grow and centralize government, but it easily dupes lefties. Lefties...they love group think and corrupt pols know it.





RollingThunder said:


> LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL..........and another hilariously insane, totally ignorant, rightwingnut denier cult wacko pops up with more deranged anti-science crackpot conspiracy theory bullshit. This one is so crazy, he doesn't even recognize the existence of science.





gipper said:


> Global warming is NOT science, it is politics...left wing Marxist NWO politics.


Just more evidence of your complete anti-science insanity, gibberingnutjob.

In the real (sane) world....

*American Association for the Advancement of Science as the world's largest general scientific society, adopted an official statement on climate change in 2006:*

*The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society....The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now.*[38]
*****

*The American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement, adopted by the society in 2003, revised in 2007,[59] and revised and expanded in 2013,[60] affirms that rising levels of greenhouse gases have caused and will continue to cause the global surface temperature to be warmer:*

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

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


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 20, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> And giving money to political donors. That's always good. LOL!



*"Dark Money" Funds Climate Change Denial Effort - Scientific American*
*Dirty Money: Big Oil and corporate polluters spent over $500 million to spread their anti-global-warming

Conservative groups spend up to $1bn a year to fight action on climate ...
*


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 20, 2016)

gipper said:


> Global warming is NOT science, it is politics...left wing Marxist NWO politics. Even a nitwit not brainwashed by leftist BS, can figure it out...but of course, left wing *.*




*You are a NITWIT WINGNUT** Science is about science you are just using GOP talking points...science is clear...........*


----------



## jc456 (May 20, 2016)

IanC said:


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


soot on the ice comes mostly from volcanic dust. 

*You don't agree that agricultural land has a different climate than what it replaced?*
I don't understand this?  What did agriculture replace?


----------



## jc456 (May 20, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Global warming is NOT science, it is politics...left wing Marxist NWO politics. Even a nitwit not brainwashed by leftist BS, can figure it out...but of course, left wing *.*
> ...


it is?  why is it you can't provide any studies from scientists?  post up a scientific experiment that proves CO2 does anything to temperature?  We're all patiently waiting for you.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 20, 2016)

jc456 said:


> *You don't agree that agricultural land has a different climate than what it replaced?*
> I don't understand this?  What did agriculture replace?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 20, 2016)

jc456 said:


> it is?  why is it you can't provide any studies from scientists?  post up a scientific experiment that proves CO2 does anything to temperature?  We're all patiently waiting for you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 20, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > And giving money to political donors. That's always good. LOL!
> ...



$500 million? LOL!
Nothing compared to the hundreds of billions in taxpayer dollars wasted on "green energy".


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (May 20, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Nothing compared to the hundreds of billions in taxpayer dollars wasted on "green energy".


you must have missed a link ...or are you the missing link 

*Conservative groups spend up to $1bn a year to fight action on climate ...*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 20, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Nothing compared to the hundreds of billions in taxpayer dollars wasted on "green energy".
> ...



$1 billion a year? LOL!
Nothing compared to the hundreds of billions in taxpayer dollars wasted on "green energy".


----------



## IanC (May 20, 2016)

jc456 said:


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



I won't argue the magnitudes right now but what about the soot we produce?

In my part of the world agricultural displaced forests of trees. Take a look at Google Earth and see if you can pick out spots where humans have changed the landscape.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 20, 2016)

IanC said:


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



I could explain to her the carbon released when the prairie sod was broken, but she's quite dim.


----------



## IanC (May 20, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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




I'm a skeptic and it pisses me off when these ignoramuses blatantly lie about what is patently obvious. Both the warmer extremists and the skeptical extremists.


----------



## jc456 (May 20, 2016)

IanC said:


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


And you feel the climate changed?  what changed in that area, less water, less oxygen?  Temperatures?


----------



## jc456 (May 20, 2016)

IanC said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


what pisses me off is when someone argues a point and can't validate the point.


----------



## easyt65 (May 20, 2016)

How Could Anyone Deny Manmade Climate Change?

By continuing to debunk the liberal 'science'.

Face it, when the only way you can 'prove' your theory is to ban from schools any material that offers a differing opinion and declare that you are going to make opposing the liberal opinion on Climate Change to be illegal, sending out your 'gestapo' DOJ to punish Climate change doubters, then you have just PROVEN your theory is NOT a fact and NOT settled.

The fact that Liberals have abandoned the term 'Global Warming' and have embraced the ambiguous term 'Climate Change' speaks volumes.


----------



## gipper (May 20, 2016)

jc456 said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Well then you are pissed off a lot, when dealing with this topic.


----------



## Wyld Kard (May 20, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Expect your version of "_reality"_ is to drink lots of Kool-Aid and believe in the power of bullshit.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (May 22, 2016)

jc456 said:


> RollingThunder said:
> 
> 
> > andaronjim said:
> ...


And still WHINING, because the temperature of late has been WELL BELOW NORMAL... and the little cry baby cant get his way.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (May 22, 2016)

IanC said:


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


Well, I do know for sure that Before man came to southern California, that place was a desert.  Before the liberals cut off the water from the northern Cal, that was brought by canals, farmers, and other people were living their lives happily in a paradise.  But since then, the water was cut off so the liberals could save Smelt Fish, and now that area has reverted back to the desert and the liberals are blaming Global Warming for that.  Talk about some really stupid people to continue living in a liberal state where the gubermant just screws you royally.  Conservatives will protect the land while providing the people the necessary means to live their lives happily. Liberals trash the land because they hate people(see them as enemies) and will do whatever they can to get rid of the peons.


----------



## SSDD (May 23, 2016)

IanC said:


> No one should deny man-made climate change. It's a fact.



So let's see one piece of observed, measured, quantified evidence gathered from out in the real world that supports that claim...  You believe, upon what actual evidence do you believe?


----------



## SSDD (May 23, 2016)

IanC said:


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



And if a butterfly twitches its wings in the Amazon, it causes a Tsunami on the other side of the world....how about some real observed, measured, quantified evidence supporting your belief....surely there is some.....or are you, after all your bluster, just a cultist believer as well?


----------



## SSDD (May 23, 2016)

IanC said:


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



Equivocating now Ian?....we are talking global change...not local...and don't go trying to explain the physics that connect butterfly wings to tsunamis on the other side of the earth.....there aren't any just like there is no back radiation...and no tropospheric hot spot.


----------



## SSDD (May 23, 2016)

IanC said:


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



So you are down to soot now?...is your all powerful back radiation now actually taking a back seat to soot?  Now you just sound like a whiner...


----------



## SSDD (May 23, 2016)

IanC said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...



it pisses you off when someone questions your belief...and make no mistake...it is only belief as there isn't the first bit of observed, measured, quantified evidence in existence to support it..


----------



## jc456 (May 23, 2016)

gipper said:


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


actually any topic.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 23, 2016)

RollingThunder said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > No one should deny man-made climate change. It's a fact.
> ...



*IanC:No one should deny man-made climate change. It's a fact

RollingThunder: Good! You're making progress.*

The moment you realize how fucking wrong you must be when RT agrees with you

how did mankind change the climate on planet Earth?


----------



## IanC (May 23, 2016)

SSDD said:


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




How am I equivocating? By pointing out that there are other ways were have changed the environment? Am I only allowed to talk about CO2 and it's warming influence? Do you really think Manhattan has the same climate now as it did when the Indians sold it for a bag of beads? Or Californian agricultural fields carved from the desert by irrigation?

Just how small and closed IS your mind?


----------



## IanC (May 23, 2016)

After the last ice age, the monsoons that kept the Sahara green stopped. That was real climate change.


----------



## Crick (May 23, 2016)

When the Arctic, Greenland and the WAIS finish melting, the world's oceans have risen 20-30 feet and the AMOC has come to a screeching halt THAT will be climate change.


----------



## jc456 (May 23, 2016)

IanC said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > IanC said:
> ...


Are you saying they did? Really. How do you know this?


----------



## jc456 (May 23, 2016)

Crick said:


> When the Arctic, Greenland and the WAIS finish melting, the world's oceans have risen 20-30 feet and the AMOC has come to a screeching halt THAT will be climate change.


How long will that take?


----------



## Old Rocks (May 23, 2016)

andaronjim said:


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


And you are a liar.





National Temperature and Precipitation Maps | Temperature, Precipitation, and Drought |  National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)


----------



## Crick (May 24, 2016)

After sea level has risen 10 or 15 meters on meltwater from Greenland, Antarctica and the rest of the world's glaciers and the AMOC has come to a grinding halt, then we will see climate change.


----------



## SSDD (May 24, 2016)

IanC said:


> How am I equivocating??



If you need an explanation then you are further gone than I thought....

And I can't help but notice that you began your equivocation when asked directly for some observed, measured, quantified evidence that man is altering the global climate...some actual evidence to support your belief...what's the matter Ian?


----------



## Wyatt earp (May 24, 2016)

Crick said:


> After sea level has risen 10 or 15 meters on meltwater from Greenland, Antarctica and the rest of the world's glaciers and the AMOC has come to a grinding halt, then we will see climate change.




What you haven't seen climate change since the day you were born?

Someone call the cops this guy is kidnapped .


.


----------



## Crick (May 24, 2016)

The problem, poster Westwall, isn't the evidence: there's mountains of it, as we're all well aware.  The problem is that you will reject out-of-hand anything presented to you and everyone here knows it. Thus there is no value whatsoever in your opinion.  It's innate biases make it worthless and irrelevant.

However, just because we're a forum-player, why don't you spell out for us, in advance, what you would accept as evidence of AGW?  Describe for us some hypothetical evidence, that, were AGW real, you believe would be available to us to lay before your feet.  And, please, no generics.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (May 24, 2016)

Crick said:


> The problem, poster Westwall, isn't the evidence: there's mountains of it, as we're all well aware.  The problem is that you will reject out-of-hand anything presented to you and everyone here knows it. Thus there is no value whatsoever in your opinion.  It's innate biases make it worthless and irrelevant.
> 
> However, just because we're a forum-player, why don't you spell out for us, in advance, what you would accept as evidence of AGW?  Describe for us some hypothetical evidence, that, were AGW real, you believe would be available to us to lay before your feet.  And, please, no generics.


One of the reasons (there are many more) was that Al Jazeera Gore, told US that back in 2000, we only had 10 years left to do something or else we would all be dead and under water.  So you libidiots went out and gave him millions of dollars to save US, and you would think after those 10 years, which we are still here, that HE did save US.  But that wasn't good enough, we are now going on 16 years, and still the first 3 weeks in May the weather has been well below average, and now we are seeing the mid 80s which this time last year, was the high 80s.  Now we have a 100 years to worry about nothing, while Al Qaeda and other liberal Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorists are burning the middle east, causing CO2 and Obama calls them the Jr. Varsity team.   So while he and other liberal elites are making billions of dollars from out tax dollars, you libidiots just wont stop drinking the kool aid.  Zieg Heil, you goosestepping low information, mind numbed useful idiots. 

A FOOL AND HIS MONEY ARE SOON SEPARATED.


----------



## gipper (May 24, 2016)

SSDD said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > No one should deny man-made climate change. It's a fact.
> ...


Whenever the State enforces an idea, like man-made global warming, you can bet it is a lie.  

Sadly, many people get duped by the State even though the State has a long history of lying.


----------



## RollingThunder (May 29, 2016)

Crick said:


> The problem, poster Westwall, isn't the evidence: there's mountains of it, as we're all well aware.  The problem is that you will reject out-of-hand anything presented to you and everyone here knows it. Thus there is no value whatsoever in your opinion.  It's innate biases make it worthless and irrelevant.
> 
> However, just because we're a forum-player, why don't you spell out for us, in advance, what you would accept as evidence of AGW?  Describe for us some hypothetical evidence, that, were AGW real, you believe would be available to us to lay before your feet.  And, please, no generics.





andaronjim said:


> One of the reasons (there are many more) was that Al Jazeera Gore, told US that back in 2000, we only had 10 years left to do something or else we would all be dead and under water.


That is a really stupid lie....and totally meaningless in relation to the scientific evidence supporting human caused global warming (which former Vice-President Gore has nothing to do with producing), you poor braindead imbecile.






andaronjim said:


> So you libidiots went out and gave him millions of dollars to save US, and you would think after those 10 years, which we are still here, that HE did save US.


That is some really, really stupid, meaningless drivel, androgynousJim. You must be very severely retarded!







andaronjim said:


> But that wasn't good enough, we are now going on 16 years....


....during which time the world has experienced 15 of the 16 hottest years on record, with 2016 shaping up as the next new hottest year on record. In that period, the world has also experienced an increase in killer heat waves, rainfall, massive flooding, severe droughts, global ice melts, sea level rises, and extreme weather events.






andaronjim said:


> and still the first 3 weeks in May the weather has been well below average, and now we are seeing the mid 80s which this time last year, was the high 80s.


April was the hottest April in the 137 years of instrumental record keeping...GLOBALLY!!!

The previous 11 months were each the hottest month of that name on record...GLOBALLY!!!

There are no published analyses of global May temperatures yet. If you are offering your LOCAL weather as some kind of supposed 'evidence' that temperatures in May are "_well below average_", then you are even more of an ignorant idiot than you already seem.

Your moronic drivel is very pathetic, as well as insanely false.

Try pulling your head out of your ass.....you might see more of what is actually happening.

*Earth's Relentless Warming Just Hit a Terrible New Threshold*


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Dec 8, 2016)

Weatherman2020 said:


> ● “El Nino could make 2015 ‘the hottest year on record’… and 2016 will be even hotter.”
> —Headline, London _Independent,_ September 14, 2015.
> 
> 
> ...


Polar vortex unleashed: Severe cold snap likely in U.S. next week


> A punishing blast of Arctic air will plunge into the northern half of the Lower 48 in five to seven days, dispensing some of the most frigid air since 2014 or 2015 in some areas.


 IF the planet is warming year after year, how can we have weather with such frigid air like 2014 or 2015?  The arctic ocean is melting(above 32 degrees) yet much of the weather coming in is below zero (0) degrees.  Better dig in and buy up the toilet paper, the winter forecast is looking for COLD.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 8, 2016)

gipper said:


> Whenever the State enforces an idea, like man-made global warming, you can bet it is a lie.
> 
> Sadly, many people get duped by the State even though the State has a long history of lying.


When the next administration claims that global warming is a hoax, do you think that will be a lie too?


----------



## gipper (Dec 8, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Whenever the State enforces an idea, like man-made global warming, you can bet it is a lie.
> ...


Do you really think if Trump were to claim this, which I believe he has, that all in the administration and federal government will go along with it?

If so, you are very naive.  

The radical left NEVER gives up.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 8, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> When the next administration claims that global warming is a hoax, do you think that will be a lie too?




No...the observed, measured, quantified, empirical evidence supports that claim


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 8, 2016)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > When the next administration claims that global warming is a hoax, do you think that will be a lie too?
> ...



Do you have evidence that we can't see the Sun?


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 8, 2016)

gipper said:


> Do you really think if Trump were to claim this, which I believe he has, that all in the administration and federal government will go along with it?
> 
> If so, you are very naive.
> 
> The radical left NEVER gives up.


Nope. What you are essentially saying is that if half the government says one thing and the other says the opposite, only one half is lying? Your previous statement was,
_Whenever the State enforces an idea, like man-made global warming, you can bet it is a lie. 
Sadly, many people get duped by the State even though the State has a long history of lying.
_​What you mean liberals lie and republicans don't? If so just say it that way rather than a blanket statement about the state. Otherwise it's meaningless ranting.


----------



## SSDD (Dec 14, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Do you really think if Trump were to claim this, which I believe he has, that all in the administration and federal government will go along with it?
> ...



If you look at history...liberals tell the great big lie in an attempt to get as many people to believe in their scheme as possible, and therefore do the greatest damage with their lie...conservatives tend to tell the small lie for personal gain.


----------



## gipper (Dec 14, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Do you really think if Trump were to claim this, which I believe he has, that all in the administration and federal government will go along with it?
> ...


Absurd.

I am not an R or a Con...dummy.

But one thing I am, is very much anti-State.  As such, I can clearly see that AGW and the State are one.  Why can't you see this obvious fact?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 14, 2016)

Old Rocks said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...




Lol Old rocks Dont know it but he just posted a electoral map from the 2020 election..what a prophet.



.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Dec 14, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Do you really think if Trump were to claim this, which I believe he has, that all in the administration and federal government will go along with it?
> ...


Notice how the wording was "What you mean liberals lie and republicans don't? ", yet the moron, doesn't realize that republicans have liberals in that party also.  John McCain, Lindsey Graham and other far left liberals know that if they ran as Democrats they would be voted out in a NY minute, so run as Republicans , screw over America then go back to their states and Run on Lies about how well they did for their state.  Yes dipshit Republicans lie, Democrats lie, but now it is time to DRAIN THE SWAMP..


If more people would watch this movie, it explains how the Democrats have been duping the stupid liberals over and over.  Die Hard liberals hate this movie, but independents realize how crooked the Democrats really are.
Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party (2016) - IMDb


> Documentarian Dinesh D'Souza analyzes the history of the Democratic Party and what he thinks are Hillary Clinton's true motivations.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 14, 2016)

gipper said:


> Absurd.
> 
> I am not an R or a Con...dummy.
> 
> But one thing I am, is very much anti-State. As such, I can clearly see that AGW and the State are one. Why can't you see this obvious fact?


It doesn't matter what you are. I still think it's hard to define exactly what the "state" is. Large bodies of the "state" want to raise taxes or lower taxes; reduce carbon fuels or allow an increase; defend abortion rights, eliminate abortion rights; more government restrictions or less ......

To be against the "state" to me is still ambiguous. And you obviously are against things that the state represents, so your blanket statement is ambiguous.


----------



## gipper (Dec 14, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Absurd.
> ...


I think you get my drift...no?


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 14, 2016)

gipper said:


> I think you get my drift...no?


Oh yes, I get your drift, but I mean you have an odd way of saying your "drift".


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Dec 14, 2016)

Wuwei said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > Absurd.
> ...


The Road to Serfdom - Wikipedia


> *The Road to Serfdom* (German: _Der Weg zur Knechtschaft_) is a book written between 1940 and 1943 by Austrian British economist and philosopher Friedrich von Hayek, in which he "[warns] of the danger of tyranny that inevitably results from government control of economic decision-making through central planning."[1] He further argues that the abandonment of individualism and classical liberalism inevitably leads to a loss of freedom, the creation of an oppressive society, the tyranny of a dictator, and the serfdom of the individual. Hayek challenged the general view among British academics that fascism (including National Socialism) was a capitalist reaction against socialism. He argued that fascism, National Socialism and socialism had common roots in central economic planning and empowering the state over the individual.


   We have seen what the state has done to its people in the name of liberal compassion time and again.  Those evil rich people living high on the hog, while some poor schlob over there cant make shit.  So in comes the state to make FAIRNESS, they take from the rich, give some to the poor, and take whatever is left over to make the state very rich, while everyone else is now in poverty and misery.  So you would rather have everyone equally poor and equally miserable, but those in power can be UBER RICH?

Hugo Chavez's ambassador daughter is Venezuela's richest woman | Daily Mail Online


> *Being the ex-President's daughter pays off: Hugo Chavez's ambassador daughter is Venezuela's richest woman*
> 
> *Diario las Americas claims that Maria Gabriela Chavez, 35, has $4.2billion in assets held in American and Andorran banks*
> *Hugo Chavez famously declared 'being rich is bad' and during his lifetime railed against the wealthy for being lazy and gluttonous  *


It is idiots like you that allow countries like Venezuela to be destroyed by their leaders.  We the People on the other hand said enough is enough, and we don't like liberalism.  If you don't like it here now, then Cuba is open, leave your passport at the border, and live your Socialist Utopian Dream there.  We don't want you here any more.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 14, 2016)

andaronjim said:


> We have seen what the state has done to its people in the name of liberal compassion time and again. Those evil rich people living high on the hog, while some poor schlob over there cant make shit. So in comes the state to make FAIRNESS, they take from the rich, give some to the poor, and take whatever is left over to make the state very rich, while everyone else is now in poverty and misery. So you would rather have everyone equally poor and equally miserable, but those in power can be UBER RICH?
> 
> It is idiots like you that allow countries like Venezuela to be destroyed by their leaders. We the People on the other hand said enough is enough, and we don't like liberalism. If you don't like it here now, then Cuba is open, leave your passport at the border, and live your Socialist Utopian Dream there. We don't want you here any more.


I see you don't like our state, and a lot of other states too. Yeah, I wouldn't want to live in those other states either. And I don't like the direction our state is going either.


----------



## Crick (Dec 14, 2016)

You state, Jim, that the state takes from the rich and gives to the poor, but then conclude that everyone is now in poverty and misery.  There's a disconnect there.  If the state gave money to the poor, they are no longer poor.  And the last time I checked, 2.6 million more Americans voted for the liberal democrat Clinton than did for the dangerous idiot Trump. Thus your comment that "We the People... don't like liberalism" doesn't work either.

So, what does this have to do with denying AGW?  Does it show that your loose enough with reality to believe we're not warming the planet?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Dec 14, 2016)

Crick said:


> You state, Jim, that the state takes from the rich and gives to the poor, but then conclude that everyone is now in poverty and misery.  There's a disconnect there.  If the state gave money to the poor, they are no longer poor.  And the last time I checked, 2.6 million more Americans voted for the liberal democrat Clinton than did for the dangerous idiot Trump. Thus your comment that "We the People... don't like liberalism" doesn't work either.
> 
> So, what does this have to do with denying AGW?  Does it show that your loose enough with reality to believe we're not warming the planet?



*And the last time I checked, 2.6 million more Americans voted for the liberal democrat Clinton than did for the dangerous idiot Trump.*

Not to mention a lot more illegal aliens.


----------

