# Enough is enough - use RICO to restore science respect.



## DonaldFG (Oct 27, 2015)

Corporate control of government has gone too far when scientific research is muted or severely misrepresented.  Good government uses science to help determine its policies for the common good.  But when corrupted individuals get into positions of power, science reports are covered up and the authors become frustrated, give up and quit, or get laid off.

Most scientists are not rich.  They don't do their type of work for the money, but for the quest for knowledge.  So, they don't have the legal means to protect themselves from powerful corporate interests - unless their government does it for them.  Similarly, the rest of us citizens expect the same from our government.

Climate scientists have known for decades that humans are hurting our Earth's environment with emissions from our machines and processes.  But their reports have been erroneously and repeatedly dismissed as invalid by corporate powers that depend on continued use of their products for their profit levels, which have been enormous.  This action to dismiss real science is illegal, as is any mass misinformation passed to influence the public.  Having been frustrated for too long, a group of scientists has written a letter to the White House to prosecute the corporate offenders under the RICO Act.  The prosecutor for the tobacco case agrees.  Exxon’s Climate Cover-Up Should Be Investigated By DOJ, Tobacco Prosecutor Says

Thom Hartmann explains the criminal evidence.  Maybe at last this will restore the respect science deserves.  What do you think?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Oct 27, 2015)

So now you want to criminalize dissent? How very freedom minded of you.


----------



## DonaldFG (Oct 27, 2015)

RetiredGySgt said:


> So now you want to criminalize dissent? How very freedom minded of you.


That's not dissent.  That's lying to the mass public - the worst kind of lying.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 27, 2015)

The AGWCult is a bigger fraud than Bernie Madoff and SHOULD be procecuted under RICO


----------



## Rustic (Oct 27, 2015)

DonaldFG said:


> Corporate control of government has gone too far when scientific research is muted or severely misrepresented.  Good government uses science to help determine its policies for the common good.  But when corrupted individuals get into positions of power, science reports are covered up and the authors become frustrated, give up and quit, or get laid off.
> 
> Most scientists are not rich.  They don't do their type of work for the money, but for the quest for knowledge.  So, they don't have the legal means to protect themselves from powerful corporate interests - unless their government does it for them.  Similarly, the rest of us citizens expect the same from our government.
> 
> ...


Thom hartmann is a pussy whipped POS... No ratings no one watches crazy.


----------



## Davros (Oct 27, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> The AGWCult is a bigger fraud than Bernie Madoff and SHOULD be procecuted nder RICO


Wrong. It's the truth. You can't handle the truth.


----------



## blastoff (Oct 27, 2015)

Wasn't there a headline or two in the last week or so warning of a coming mini ice age?  

And that's good because the climate change kooks have been one ice age down since they warned one was on the way 35-40 years ago.


----------



## Davros (Oct 27, 2015)

blastoff said:


> Wasn't there a headline or two in the last week or so warning of a coming mini ice age?
> 
> And that's good because the climate change kooks have been one ice age down since they warned one was on the way 35-40 years ago.


Yawn
 Global warming is real. The blind close their eyes.

Strongest hurricane ever.
Record El Nino.
Hottest summer ever.
New rainfall records and massive flooding somewhere else every week.

Open you eyes, dammit!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 27, 2015)

Davros said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > The AGWCult is a bigger fraud than Bernie Madoff and SHOULD be procecuted nder RICO
> ...



LOL@ Truth

All of a sudden in AR5 you have to add in "Warming" that been consumed by the deep oceans just to make your numbers work

LOL


----------



## Davros (Oct 27, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Davros said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Do you think oceans can't absorb heat? Do you understand basic chemistry and physics, energy budget, etc? Do you understand any science whatsoever?

Fact remains ... this year is smashing all record books.

Global warming is real. Feel free to remain ignorant for god only knows what reason.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 27, 2015)

Davros said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Davros said:
> ...



Not the point!  AR5 and "The hotterest Summa EHAV!!!!!!" are an accounting fiction caused by adding a whole new flexible data set (deep oceans. What was the temperature of the "Deep oceans" 150 years ago?) to the equations


----------



## Sallow (Oct 27, 2015)

Davros said:


> blastoff said:
> 
> 
> > Wasn't there a headline or two in the last week or so warning of a coming mini ice age?
> ...



Not to mention the Polar Vortex, acidotic oceans and massive loss of wildlife. That's along with the wildfires.

Truly profound things are taking place.

And these folks think BAU is a good idea.


----------



## Davros (Oct 27, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Davros said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


That is simply not true. These are land temperatures. This is the hottest year on record.
Climate at a Glance |  National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

Even in the US this summer and fall have been way above average except in Alaska. You can feel it yourself wherever you are. It's damn hot. Open your eyes dammit. Global warming is real.


----------



## Stephanie (Oct 27, 2015)

DonaldFG said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > So now you want to criminalize dissent? How very freedom minded of you.
> ...


How about when Obama won lie of the year by saying. If you like your plan you can keep your plan. ? was that a good kind of lying to the mass public or the worst kind?
so we can prosecute Obama under RICO? I'm all for that. they want to prosecute people just to get Science RESPECT? holy smokes. that is some scary stuff and we might have to start asking what country as we now living in


----------



## LordBrownTrout (Oct 27, 2015)

Man made climate change is nothing but a hoax.


----------



## LordBrownTrout (Oct 27, 2015)

Davros said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Davros said:
> ...


 

Glowarm and cc have been happening for millions of years.  Geological cycles.  We're but a pinprick.


----------



## Davros (Oct 27, 2015)

LordBrownTrout said:


> Davros said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


A pinprick that's radically changed the land surface of this planet. Yeah, there's no data to support your postulate that mankind cannot change this planet. None whatsoever.

Yes, climate cycles are real. But that does not prove that the current global warming is not mostly driven by human activity. Increasing the CO2 in our system like we have by burning fuels that were locked up for 200 million years plus is going to have an impact. Massive deforestation is going to have an impact. Don't kid yourself.


----------



## daws101 (Oct 27, 2015)

all the usual climate deniers dropped whatever they were doing to comment.


----------



## LordBrownTrout (Oct 27, 2015)

Davros said:


> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> > Davros said:
> ...


 

There is no data to support the claim that man is causing climate change either.


----------



## Davros (Oct 27, 2015)

LordBrownTrout said:


> Davros said:
> 
> 
> > LordBrownTrout said:
> ...


Yes there is. Carbon emissions by industry are tracked, and they can be held responsible for the rise in CO2. That CO2 causes warming is solid scientific theory is solid scientific theory backed by satellite observation of its effect on atmospheric absorption of the radiation spectrum.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Oct 27, 2015)

DonaldFG said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > So now you want to criminalize dissent? How very freedom minded of you.
> ...



No, the worst kind of lying is people like you fooling the masses into believing we are causing climate change.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Oct 27, 2015)

DonaldFG said:


> *Enough is enough - use RICO to restore science respect.*









"Respect" for science, rests entirely in science being OBJECTIVE.  There is NOTHING objective in _*"SCIENCE!".  *_Which is the subjective politicization of science.  

Here's a clue... where one claims to stand upon the singularly consistency of the Earth's Climate to be a sign of impending doom...(FYI: That singular consistency is CHANGE!) you expose yourself as a prattling buffoon.


----------



## LordBrownTrout (Oct 27, 2015)

Davros said:


> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> > Davros said:
> ...


 
Rising CO2 isn't proof enough.  Its only one variable.  Many scientists have no evidence of rising levels of moisture in those areas of the atmosphere where the models claim it should be found. Without this amplification there is no global warming crisis.  Warming is even trending down now.


----------



## Misty (Oct 27, 2015)

Davros said:


> blastoff said:
> 
> 
> > Wasn't there a headline or two in the last week or so warning of a coming mini ice age?
> ...


Ever?!?!?  How the fuck do you know. Been alive forever??? 

That hurricane died into a storm before it even hit land. Another exaggeration by the hysterical media.


----------



## Davros (Oct 27, 2015)

LordBrownTrout said:


> Davros said:
> 
> 
> > LordBrownTrout said:
> ...


No rising levels of moisture and yet somehow an increase in extreme flooding. How is that possoble? You're not looking at the right data. Moisture is increasing. The models are far from perfect, but the basics are there. The climate is warming. The CO2 continues to climb. The trends will continue in the long run. And 2015 is going to make a lot of these model projections look a lot better. And that is a guarantee.


----------



## Davros (Oct 27, 2015)

Misty said:


> Davros said:
> 
> 
> > blastoff said:
> ...


Fine. Recorded history. The hurricane was unusual by any measure.


----------



## depotoo (Oct 27, 2015)

You read nothing but sensationalist articles/blogs/headlines because if you actually research those items you would find ALL are exaggerated/untrue.





Davros said:


> blastoff said:
> 
> 
> > Wasn't there a headline or two in the last week or so warning of a coming mini ice age?
> ...


----------



## Wyatt earp (Oct 27, 2015)

Davros said:


> blastoff said:
> 
> 
> > Wasn't there a headline or two in the last week or so warning of a coming mini ice age?
> ...



Strongest hurricane on record, the records started in the 1940's...the earth is 4.5 billion years old not 75 years old

Hottest year on record, the records started around the 1900`s , Again the earth is 4.5 billion years old not 115 years old

Flooding been around for Evah .

You are worse then the bible thumpers in your fear mongering at least they think the Earth is 6,000 years old not 75 years or 115 years old.


----------



## easyt65 (Oct 27, 2015)

I thought Liberals were going to restore science respect by jailing anyone who refused to believe what they do about global warming?!


----------



## martybegan (Oct 27, 2015)

bear513 said:


> Davros said:
> 
> 
> > blastoff said:
> ...



Plus the only solution they all come up with is more government, more regulation, more taxes, more cost, less freedom. 

Watermelons, all of them.


----------



## boilermaker55 (Oct 27, 2015)

While you think that oil executives and their croonies are objective?
Seriously, because they are the group(s) that are pushing anti-climate change.
Money, money,money at the expense of killing others.
And this is the group that believes in LIFE is precious. OH! Until it comes to money.
Then to hell with life.





Where_r_my_Keys said:


> DonaldFG said:
> 
> 
> > *Enough is enough - use RICO to restore science respect.*
> ...


----------



## depotoo (Oct 27, 2015)

Davros, you have no interest in the truth otherwise you would not have rated my post funny.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Oct 27, 2015)

Once again liberals prove they love censorship and hate the 1st amendment


----------



## DonaldFG (Oct 27, 2015)

blastoff said:


> Wasn't there a headline or two in the last week or so warning of a coming mini ice age?
> 
> And that's good because the climate change kooks have been one ice age down since they warned one was on the way 35-40 years ago.


Misinformation is rampant.  That is why we need to clean up all the garbage *disguised* as facts.  Those who create fake facts should be held accountable.  Global warming is affecting the climate, so what does lying get you?  So far the warming oceans are having a huge impact on the weather.


----------



## DonaldFG (Oct 27, 2015)

bear513 said:


> Once again liberals prove they love censorship and hate the 1st amendment


How so?


----------



## DonaldFG (Oct 27, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> DonaldFG said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



First let me say I am not and never was a big Obama fan.  When he hired Wall Street bankers for his Administration, I knew I was right.  

I wanted Medicare for all!

However, keeping your health care plan was the original intent.  It turned out some of those plans were terrible plans, therefore had to be discontinued.


----------



## DonaldFG (Oct 27, 2015)

LordBrownTrout said:


> Man made climate change is nothing but a hoax.


And the proof is ...?


----------



## DonaldFG (Oct 27, 2015)

LordBrownTrout said:


> Davros said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



The hockey stick statistic has not happened before.  Humans are doing this.  (Ref:  Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth)


----------



## daws101 (Oct 27, 2015)

the odd the about deniers is they are more worried their wallets than being alive.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 27, 2015)

DonaldFG said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > DonaldFG said:
> ...



What a spin attempt. bravo, you dime store hack.


----------



## DonaldFG (Oct 27, 2015)

daws101 said:


> all the usual climate deniers dropped whatever they were doing to comment.


Question is, do they actually believe what they are saying out of ignorance?  Or do they work for a fossil fuel company?


----------



## martybegan (Oct 27, 2015)

DonaldFG said:


> blastoff said:
> 
> 
> > Wasn't there a headline or two in the last week or so warning of a coming mini ice age?
> ...


----------



## daws101 (Oct 27, 2015)

Marty's on the rag again.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 27, 2015)

daws101 said:


> Marty's on the rag again.



Sorry, but calls for using government to punish speech you don't like makes me cranky. It's that whole not liking fascist twats thing.


----------



## DonaldFG (Oct 27, 2015)

LordBrownTrout said:


> ...
> There is no data to support the claim that man is causing climate change either.



IPCC Fifth Assessment Synthesis Report


----------



## DonaldFG (Oct 27, 2015)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> DonaldFG said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



And saying that makes it so.  Nice argument.  It just proves false statements don't need facts to back them up.


----------



## DonaldFG (Oct 27, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> DonaldFG said:
> 
> 
> > *Enough is enough - use RICO to restore science respect.*
> ...



Look in the mirror my friend.


----------



## DonaldFG (Oct 27, 2015)

LordBrownTrout said:


> Davros said:
> 
> 
> > LordBrownTrout said:
> ...



You need to read the real science reports, not the fake ones.


----------



## DonaldFG (Oct 27, 2015)

easyt65 said:


> I thought Liberals were going to restore science respect by jailing anyone who refused to believe what they do about global warming?!



When people are not informed, or falsely informed, they develop incorrect beliefs.  Don't form your beliefs on propaganda.


----------



## Katzndogz (Oct 27, 2015)

DonaldFG said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > So now you want to criminalize dissent? How very freedom minded of you.
> ...


Politicians have always lied to the public.   The worst kind of lying has been to foist a hoax like global warming or its climate change incarnation.


----------



## DonaldFG (Oct 27, 2015)

martybegan said:


> DonaldFG said:
> 
> 
> > blastoff said:
> ...


 
Nasty comments produce no results.  Look in the mirror.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Oct 27, 2015)

DonaldFG said:


> Look in the mirror my friend.



Your Concession is Duly Noted and Summarily Accepted, _my friend._


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Oct 27, 2015)

DonaldFG said:


> When people are not informed, or falsely informed, they develop incorrect beliefs.  Don't form your beliefs on propaganda.


----------



## LordBrownTrout (Oct 27, 2015)

DonaldFG said:


> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> > Davros said:
> ...


 

"Ref al gore"  That's funny.


----------



## PredFan (Oct 27, 2015)

DonaldFG said:


> Corporate control of government has gone too far when scientific research is muted or severely misrepresented.  Good government uses science to help determine its policies for the common good.  But when corrupted individuals get into positions of power, science reports are covered up and the authors become frustrated, give up and quit, or get laid off.
> 
> Most scientists are not rich.  They don't do their type of work for the money, but for the quest for knowledge.  So, they don't have the legal means to protect themselves from powerful corporate interests - unless their government does it for them.  Similarly, the rest of us citizens expect the same from our government.
> 
> ...



One HUGE glaring error in your OP, well one of many but IMO the most important, you said: "They don't do their type of work for the money, but for the quest for knowledge." That is an absolute lie. Scientists are for sale. They always have been and always will be.


----------



## PredFan (Oct 27, 2015)

Davros said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > The AGWCult is a bigger fraud than Bernie Madoff and SHOULD be procecuted nder RICO
> ...



If it was true, then why do they have to lie about it? Why do they have to threaten any scientist who doesn't toe the line? Why do they have to commit fraud? Why do they want the government to arrest dissenters? None of that would be necessary if it were true.


----------



## daws101 (Oct 27, 2015)

DonaldFG said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > all the usual climate deniers dropped whatever they were doing to comment.
> ...


Both and still ignorant.


----------



## daws101 (Oct 27, 2015)

martybegan said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Marty's on the rag again.
> ...


That might be ok if it were actually happening.since it's not....


----------



## daws101 (Oct 27, 2015)

Tipsycatlover said:


> DonaldFG said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


That line will be a hit when you are in the water ration line.


----------



## daws101 (Oct 27, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> DonaldFG said:
> 
> 
> > When people are not informed, or falsely informed, they develop incorrect beliefs.  Don't form your beliefs on propaganda.


The real irony is you actually do form your opinion from conservative propaganda and are too ignorant to admit it.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Oct 27, 2015)

DonaldFG said:


> blastoff said:
> 
> 
> > Wasn't there a headline or two in the last week or so warning of a coming mini ice age?
> ...



Prove it is man made and then prove how much man contributes


----------



## Wyatt earp (Oct 27, 2015)

DonaldFG said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > all the usual climate deniers dropped whatever they were doing to comment.
> ...



Don't tell me you are that ignorant and don't know oil company's spent billions of dollars since the 80s on green energy...


----------



## DonaldFG (Oct 27, 2015)

PredFan said:


> DonaldFG said:
> 
> 
> > Corporate control of government has gone too far when scientific research is muted or severely misrepresented.  Good government uses science to help determine its policies for the common good.  But when corrupted individuals get into positions of power, science reports are covered up and the authors become frustrated, give up and quit, or get laid off.
> ...



You're saying everybody's reputation is for sale.  Not true!


----------



## depotoo (Oct 27, 2015)

Donald, you are really behind.  Research both sides for yourself and them make a decision.  





DonaldFG said:


> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> > Davros said:
> ...


----------



## Katzndogz (Oct 27, 2015)

daws101 said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> > DonaldFG said:
> ...



Or in the bail out line for rain.  Or, the blanket line for snow.  Or the storm warning line for storms that don't happen.  Oh.  Lack of storms is climate change.

It's a hoax.  Anyone can see that.


----------



## Rustic (Oct 27, 2015)

Davros said:


> blastoff said:
> 
> 
> > Wasn't there a headline or two in the last week or so warning of a coming mini ice age?
> ...


It's cold here today...

Buy more guns and ammo...


----------



## koshergrl (Oct 27, 2015)

DonaldFG said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > So now you want to criminalize dissent? How very freedom minded of you.
> ...


 Scientists are not excluded from the liars' club.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 27, 2015)

DonaldFG said:


> That's not dissent.  That's lying to the mass public - the worst kind of lying.



IT'S HERESY against the holy church of AGW!

Burn Heretics, BURN...



Cultists, most irrational fuckers on the planet.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 27, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> The AGWCult is a bigger fraud than Bernie Madoff and SHOULD be procecuted under RICO



We have freedom of religion in this country, even for totally insane fucks like the AGW cult.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Oct 27, 2015)

PredFan said:


> One HUGE glaring error in your OP, well one of many but IMO the most important, you said: "They don't do their type of work for the money, but for the quest for knowledge." That is an absolute lie. Scientists are for sale. They always have been and always will be.



LOL!  So true.

What the OP is trying to do is what the Left always does.  It uses words which bring one connotation, to define something that in no way represents the word they're using.  

Take 'liberal' for instance... Liberal is rooted in the latin 'liber'... or freedom. Thus a liberus, or 'liberal' is one that advocates for freedom.  

The Ideological Left does not advocate for freedom... it advocates for the separation of the duties or responsibilities that sustain the means of the individual to BE free.

Same goes for "gay".  Gay refers to merriment, or festiveness... in the vane of innocence.  There's nothing innocent about a sexual deviant. Such is the anti-thesis of innocence.

Therefore, we can rest assured that the Ideological Left is a long train of lies, deceit and fraudulence, advanced for no other reason than as a means to influence the ignorant.  

Meaning that the Left is nothing short of: _EVIL._


----------



## koshergrl (Oct 27, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > One HUGE glaring error in your OP, well one of many but IMO the most important, you said: "They don't do their type of work for the money, but for the quest for knowledge." That is an absolute lie. Scientists are for sale. They always have been and always will be.
> ...


Yup.


----------



## daws101 (Oct 27, 2015)

Tipsycatlover said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Tipsycatlover said:
> ...


with all the rubbing alcohol you consume it's obvious you say that.


----------



## PredFan (Oct 27, 2015)

DonaldFG said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > DonaldFG said:
> ...



Not everybody, but there are so few that aren't there for the money and prestige that it makes little difference. For instance, if you publish science that goes against global warming, your career is over. No one is interested in "knowledge" if it kills the cash cow. That is a fact.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 27, 2015)

Davros said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Davros said:
> ...



Not even twenty posts in and the bull shit is deep from eviro-wackos and their drones.. 

SO much science fiction from the left. Global warming (Man Caused) is bull shit! Empirical Evidence shows its a lie.. I have posted it many times..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 27, 2015)

DonaldFG said:


> blastoff said:
> 
> 
> > Wasn't there a headline or two in the last week or so warning of a coming mini ice age?
> ...



Lets start by cleaning up your garbage, shall we?

Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000.  Below each is  the rate of warming.






The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade

This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC and is near or is the Natural Variation rate.

The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade.

Now, this means that the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION..






So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2. During the time they claim runway rise it was nothing of the sort and even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.

LET ME REPEAT; THERE WAS NO DISCERNIBLE INCREASE IN NATURAL TEMPERATURE RISE.....  This means the added CO2 IS NOT A FACTOR!

NOW lets look at the last 18 years 8 months where there has been NO WARMING and yet CO2 still rose.

Both show CO2 has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CHANGES and NATURAL VARIATION CAN BE SHOWN TO BE 100% responsible.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 27, 2015)

DonaldFG said:


> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> > Davros said:
> ...



The hockey stick (or Hokey Schitck) is an outright fabrication and a lie.. Even a random number generator with the MCV (Mann Correction Vector) applied will show a  dam hockey stick.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 27, 2015)

I dont know what scares me more, The socialist scumbags who think those who dont agree with them should be jailed or killed or the low information vote who sucks their crap up without thinking and are willing to give up our freedoms for the CAGW lie?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 27, 2015)

Scientists demand obama use RICO act to prosecute global warming deniers. | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

IT seams there are fools who think that use of RICO is a smart thing...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 27, 2015)

There is only one way for science to regain respect.

They must be open and honest.
They must make all data public.
They must show their work (math, methods, Etc)
They must be transparent and be OPEN TO PUBLIC DEBATE..
They must remember the key roll of the scientific method is to disprove the hypothesis by systematically ruling out all possibilities.
They must remain skeptical of all findings.

The science is NOT SETTLED..

The SCIENCE IS NOT CLEAR because the science has been politicized and is being used for a world domination agenda.

The word "CONSENSUS" is political and not scientific.

Threatening those, who do not agree with your religion, with prison or death is not even funny, we might mistake you for a radical Muslim extremist..


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 27, 2015)

DonaldFG said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > So now you want to criminalize dissent? How very freedom minded of you.
> ...



You have to excuse us if we decline to leave the determination of who's dissenting and who's lying to the likes of you.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 27, 2015)

blastoff said:


> Wasn't there a headline or two in the last week or so warning of a coming mini ice age?
> 
> And that's good because the climate change kooks have been one ice age down since they warned one was on the way 35-40 years ago.


My, my, another ignorant ass repeating that bullshit. No, most of the papers in scientific journals, even in the '70's, stated that they believed the danger was from warming because of GHG's. No, there may have been headlines in the Weekly Globe and trash of that ilk, but not in scientific papers.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 27, 2015)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> DonaldFG said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


From Joseph Fourier to Tyndall, to Svante Arrhenius, the science has been solid that an increase in GHG's create an increase in heat in the atmosphere. Evidence from the past extinctions indicates that rapid increases from GHG's caused by Trapp Volcanism caused those extinctions. We have rapidly increased the levels of both CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere, over 40% for CO2 and over 250% for CH4. 

The evidence is irrefutable that we are causing major changes in our climate. Changes that will negatively impact all of us.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 27, 2015)

bear513 said:


> DonaldFG said:
> 
> 
> > blastoff said:
> ...


Were you to actually look at the evidence that the scientists present, you would see that it is already proven. Instead, you blindly accept whatever the 'Conservative' lie machine spews.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 27, 2015)

PredFan said:


> DonaldFG said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...


Really? Not a great many millionaire scientists. But lying hacks like Limpbaugh make tens of millions. 

But fools like you define the hatred of science and logic that is endemic in the rightwingnuts.


----------



## PredFan (Oct 27, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > DonaldFG said:
> ...



No dumbass, that is exactly the point. They aren't millionaires, they need the money. Who gives a shit what Limbaugh makes or thinks? You? I don't.
And fools like you think that just agreeing with the left wing version of science means you know and love science. But people like me who love science, and actually know science PLUS love history and actually know history, are smart enough to know that history shows scientists are like everyone else. They need the money.

How stupid are you? Well you are stupid enough to actually think that if you believe in global warming, you automatically know science and love science. When in fact you are just a gullible idiot.


----------



## PredFan (Oct 27, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > DonaldFG said:
> ...



It is NOT proven that is a lie. If you knew ANYTHING about science, or the "science" of global warming, you would know that. You don't, all you can do is tell lies.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 27, 2015)

My, my. And your degree is in what discipline? Did you even finish high school?


----------



## PredFan (Oct 27, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > DonaldFG said:
> ...



Wrong, moron. Computer models don't mean squat. Garbage in, garbage out. As far as historical records of GHG, they show that GHGs follow increases in heat, not the other way around. Man made Global Warming is a scam. That's why all of the people, politicians, and scientists have to lie, coerce, threaten, and belittle those who don't fall in line. Only brainless idiots such as you fall for it.


----------



## PredFan (Oct 27, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> My, my. And your degree is in what discipline? Did you even finish high school?



Farther than you apparently.


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 27, 2015)

Didn't finish high school, eh.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 27, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> blastoff said:
> 
> 
> > Wasn't there a headline or two in the last week or so warning of a coming mini ice age?
> ...



Well Old Fraud, your bull shit appeals to authority when their proof is fantasy models is way beyond  reason. 

The warming that has happened can be attributed to natural variation 100%... The empirical evidence shows it..  And you got what? Broken models?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Oct 27, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> blastoff said:
> 
> 
> > Wasn't there a headline or two in the last week or so warning of a coming mini ice age?
> ...



Then why didn't it make the main stream news?

You are full of shit


----------



## Wyatt earp (Oct 27, 2015)

PredFan said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



You already admitted countless times you don't give a fuck about the science you want to go way way overboard to protect the children of the future .


----------



## westwall (Oct 27, 2015)

DonaldFG said:


> Corporate control of government has gone too far when scientific research is muted or severely misrepresented.  Good government uses science to help determine its policies for the common good.  But when corrupted individuals get into positions of power, science reports are covered up and the authors become frustrated, give up and quit, or get laid off.
> 
> Most scientists are not rich.  They don't do their type of work for the money, but for the quest for knowledge.  So, they don't have the legal means to protect themselves from powerful corporate interests - unless their government does it for them.  Similarly, the rest of us citizens expect the same from our government.
> 
> ...






That's funny.  They can't show a single empirical data set that supports your claim.  UHI is a well known effect, however the effect that man has on global temps is little to none.  Only in computer models do climatologists show any effect.  I will take observed reality over computer derived science fiction any day of the week.


----------



## westwall (Oct 27, 2015)

Davros said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Davros said:
> ...








No, the facts are the "record" temps are five times lower than the instruments can measure.  Do you not understand simple math?  The claim is the record has been broken by . 038 C.  The problem of course is that NOAA admits their instruments are only accurate to within .1 degree C.  Do you see the problem there?  I'll make it easy for you....I can make the claim that the temps DROPPED by .038 degree and be just as accurate.


----------



## Stephanie (Oct 28, 2015)

As we see these "Globull warmers" are becoming Dangerous to us suggesting they use RICO.
wtf


----------



## martybegan (Oct 28, 2015)

DonaldFG said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > DonaldFG said:
> ...



I calls it as I see it.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 28, 2015)

daws101 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Keep deluding yourself about that.


----------



## PredFan (Oct 28, 2015)

bear513 said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Never said that ever. Why the lies? Why do global warming scientists and believers have to lie all the time?


----------



## Old Rocks (Oct 28, 2015)

westwall said:


> DonaldFG said:
> 
> 
> > Corporate control of government has gone too far when scientific research is muted or severely misrepresented.  Good government uses science to help determine its policies for the common good.  But when corrupted individuals get into positions of power, science reports are covered up and the authors become frustrated, give up and quit, or get laid off.
> ...


The BEST study pretty well demolished your lies. And the policy statements of the AGU and GSA are unequivical in their evidence for AGW.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 28, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > DonaldFG said:
> ...



NO!

The BEST study actually proves his point.  I see your taking deception and graph reading classes from Crick again.  

BEST clearly indicated the most accurate measuring device they use has a capability of just 0.2 deg C (or an error range of +/- 0.1 deg C).  You want to retract your blatant lie now?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 28, 2015)

PredFan said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...



As Dr Evans recently pointed out, modelers dont have a clue what the whole theoretical equation is, let alone how it should be employed (when the order of operations is done in the wrong order the answer derived, *is wrong*). Proven by the failures of all models to predict anything.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 28, 2015)

westwall said:


> DonaldFG said:
> 
> 
> > Corporate control of government has gone too far when scientific research is muted or severely misrepresented.  Good government uses science to help determine its policies for the common good.  But when corrupted individuals get into positions of power, science reports are covered up and the authors become frustrated, give up and quit, or get laid off.
> ...



The US-CRN shows we dont have any effect on a major portion of the earths surface.






In fact, we are cooling, when all the heavily adjusted HCN station data tells us we are warming. Is this the artifact known as UHI?   Even the RSS/UAH say were cooling and have been for about 12 years now..


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 28, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Didn't finish high school, eh.



If he didn't finish high school, he would have more education than you?

I can buy that.


----------



## DonaldFG (Oct 28, 2015)

bear513 said:


> DonaldFG said:
> 
> 
> > blastoff said:
> ...



Read.  IPCC Fifth Assessment Synthesis Report


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 28, 2015)

PredFan said:


> Never said that ever. Why the lies? Why do global warming scientists and believers have to lie all the time?



Because the facts and data don't support the political agenda they are paid to promote.


----------



## westwall (Oct 28, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > DonaldFG said:
> ...








It did?  Please provide us with the links and highlight the specific passages that you believe "demolished" my assertion.

I'll wait....


----------



## westwall (Oct 28, 2015)

DonaldFG said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > DonaldFG said:
> ...








Read it when it first came out.  Please show us the part that shows actual science and not opinion, or haven't YOU read it yet?  On the other hand maybe you don't understand the difference between facts and opinions?


----------



## DonaldFG (Oct 28, 2015)

depotoo said:


> Donald, you are really behind.  Research both sides for yourself and them make a decision.



That's just it.  There are no "both sides"!  This issue has been settled long ago.

IPCC Fifth Assessment Synthesis Report


----------



## DonaldFG (Oct 28, 2015)

koshergrl said:


> DonaldFG said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



Maybe sometimes.  But the whole community does not lie.  They verify reports from others.


----------



## DonaldFG (Oct 28, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > DonaldFG said:
> ...



The scientific climate experts don't agree with your statements.  Read the consensus opinion, not the made up one.

IPCC Fifth Assessment Synthesis Report


----------



## DonaldFG (Oct 28, 2015)

westwall said:


> DonaldFG said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



The consensus opinion is based on volumes of scientific facts accumulated over centuries.  Even Exxon scientists saw it happening back in the fifties as Hartmann's video exposes.  This is why their denial and fraudulent  statements are criminal.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 28, 2015)

DonaldFG said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > DonaldFG said:
> ...



A political piece of crapola.. nothing but pure conjecture.


----------



## DonaldFG (Oct 28, 2015)

PredFan said:


> DonaldFG said:
> 
> 
> > You're saying everybody's reputation is for sale.  Not true!
> ...



What cash cow?  The climatologist community isn't making any money from this.  Just their normal paychecks.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 28, 2015)

DonaldFG said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Reciting crap over and over again doesn't make it true.  All of their modeling FAILED.. thus any advice they give is given from a FAILED and WRONG perspective.  The models hold no predictive power thus they are WRONG! Its called science not POLITICAL-SCIENCE


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 28, 2015)

DonaldFG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > DonaldFG said:
> ...



Con-census is a POLITICAL word and means nothing in science. At its root is the word CON... Lie, deception...etc.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 28, 2015)

DonaldFG said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



What part of POLITICAL CRAP do you not understand?  I gave you hard empirical evidence and you present failed modeling based political crap..



 

They are a political organization bent on socialism and world governance.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 28, 2015)

daws101 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



All your posts have about as much substance as dot com has intellect.


----------



## DonaldFG (Oct 28, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> DonaldFG said:
> 
> 
> > blastoff said:
> ...



Get real, my friend.






Summary Information |  National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 28, 2015)

DonaldFG said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > DonaldFG said:
> ...



BULL SHIT!
876 Billion dollars in the last ten years just from the US money cow..


----------



## Wyatt earp (Oct 28, 2015)

DonaldFG said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > Donald, you are really behind.  Research both sides for yourself and them make a decision.
> ...



Climate change has been settled 10,000~ 100,000 years ago, this is you and your ilks game...you want to blend in natural climate change, man made climate change and pollution all in one.

We don't have meaningful data to draw a statistical conclusion. Post in another thousand years then we can analyze accurate data.


----------



## DonaldFG (Oct 28, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> DonaldFG said:
> 
> 
> > LordBrownTrout said:
> ...



As I stated before, lies don't solve anything.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Oct 28, 2015)

DonaldFG said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > DonaldFG said:
> ...



No data is worth it's salt till the 1990s and ocean temperature since 2004

And the only way to see if it's a trend is to the year 3090


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 28, 2015)

DonaldFG said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > DonaldFG said:
> ...



Taking lessons form Old fraud and highly adjusted data sets. But then we have reality in RSS and UAH which covers from 82.5 S lat to 82.5 N Lat which shows your highly adjusted data as crap.. The historical climate network has been heavily adjusted and covers just 31% of the earth while satellites cover some 94% of the earth..





Oh and then there is the well sited US-CRN which shows your lies as well...


 

And then there is Empirical review of Karl Et Al and his lies ..





Your crap is just that... Lies, deceit and not a lick of science anywhere to be found..


----------



## DonaldFG (Oct 28, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> There is only one way for science to regain respect.
> 
> They must be open and honest.
> They must make all data public.
> ...



Just as the science on gravity is not settled; and yet, we are still stuck to the ground.  Some things are obvious.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 28, 2015)

DonaldFG said:


> That's just it.  There are no "both sides"!  This issue has been settled long ago.
> 
> IPCC Fifth Assessment Synthesis Report




So you claim that the sun orbiting the Earth is "settled science" and cannot be questioned by "deniers" and other heretics?

Something about you is familiar...


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 28, 2015)

DonaldFG said:


> Just as the science on gravity is not settled; and yet, we are still stuck to the ground.  Some things are obvious.



Other than a 7th grade science class, do you have ANY knowledge of the scientific method or the processes used?

You support leftist politics, you know nothing of science.


----------



## daws101 (Oct 28, 2015)

martybegan said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


Bold statement for someone who has neither .


----------



## daws101 (Oct 28, 2015)

bear513 said:


> DonaldFG said:
> 
> 
> > depotoo said:
> ...


really both dates you quoted were ice ages.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 28, 2015)

daws101 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


----------



## daws101 (Oct 28, 2015)

Uncensored2008 said:


> DonaldFG said:
> 
> 
> > Just as the science on gravity is not settled; and yet, we are still stuck to the ground.  Some things are obvious.
> ...


Two entertaining posts from the minster of fascist propaganda.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 28, 2015)

DonaldFG said:


> What cash cow?  The climatologist community isn't making any money from this.  Just their normal paychecks.



BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA

The lies you moron cultists tell...


----------



## daws101 (Oct 28, 2015)

martybegan said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


Yet another failed attempt at humor.


----------



## DonaldFG (Oct 28, 2015)

westwall said:


> Davros said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Apparently, you are having fun making things up.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 28, 2015)

daws101 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Everyone else is laughing, and it's AT you, not WITH you.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 28, 2015)

daws101 said:


> Two entertaining posts from the minster of fascist propaganda.



You ignorantly toss about terms you don't grasp, yet again. You have no idea what fascism is.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 28, 2015)

DonaldFG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Davros said:
> ...



Actually,  Westwall is grounded in empirical evidence, you however, are not..


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 28, 2015)

DonaldFG said:


> As I stated before, lies don't solve anything.



Then why do you keep telling them?


----------



## daws101 (Oct 28, 2015)

martybegan said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


 You say that like it's supposed to have some relavance, when in reality it's an appeal to the masses fallicy and has none.


----------



## daws101 (Oct 28, 2015)

Uncensored2008 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Two entertaining posts from the minster of fascist propaganda.
> ...


Right you just keep thinking that.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 28, 2015)

DonaldFG said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > There is only one way for science to regain respect.
> ...



Man Made Global Warming is fiction.  What is obvious, you do not like empirical facts and evidence..

So post up the work which shows what a 120ppm rise in atmospheric CO2 has done to temp.  Be sure to show how you came to that conclusion. Data, Math, Methods used to rule out all other sources, etc..  Remember that models are fantasy constructs when you dont know what the mathematical equations really are.. Fudging it is unethical..  I dont accept the IPCC allowed fudging and fantasy used to promote an agenda.


----------



## DonaldFG (Oct 28, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> They [IPCC] are a political organization bent on socialism and world governance.



If that means they are for truth, justice, equal rights, and furthering the common good, I am all for it!


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 28, 2015)

DonaldFG said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > They [IPCC] are a political organization bent on socialism and world governance.
> ...



Finally!  You admit your a watermelon...  Green on the outside and Communist/Socialism agenda on the inside..   The ends justify the means and any lies that must be told to get there...

You admit that this is a ploy to forward your socialist agenda..  Your ilk are more dangerous than radical Islamist.  At least with radical Islamist's we know who the enemy is, you come from within and are thus more dangerous to everyone.


----------



## DonaldFG (Oct 28, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Man Made Global Warming is fiction.  What is obvious, you do not like empirical facts and evidence..
> 
> So post up the work which shows what a 120ppm rise in atmospheric CO2 has done to temp.  Be sure to show how you came to that conclusion. Data, Math, Methods used to rule out all other sources, etc..  Remember that models are fantasy constructs when you dont know what the mathematical equations really are.. Fudging it is unethical..  I dont accept the IPCC allowed fudging and fantasy used to promote an agenda.









Summary Information |  National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 28, 2015)

daws101 said:


> Right you just keep thinking that.



Your continued deployment of malapropism will have any educated person grasping this.


----------



## DonaldFG (Oct 28, 2015)

Uncensored2008 said:


> DonaldFG said:
> 
> 
> > Just as the science on gravity is not settled; and yet, we are still stuck to the ground.  Some things are obvious.
> ...



And you do?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 28, 2015)

DonaldFG said:


> If that means they are for truth, justice, equal rights, and furthering the common good, I am all for it!



So you base your position 100% on politics.

Science has nothing to do with what you, or the IPCC promotes.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 28, 2015)

DonaldFG said:


> And you do?



Yes, which is why I don't bother to engage you cretins in debating the dogma of your cult.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 28, 2015)

DonaldFG said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > They [IPCC] are a political organization bent on socialism and world governance.
> ...



They admitted that Global Warming is a wealth redistribution scheme. Trump will boot them from the USA


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 28, 2015)

DonaldFG said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Man Made Global Warming is fiction.  What is obvious, you do not like empirical facts and evidence..
> ...



NECI formerly NCDC was wrong and remains wrong.. They changed their name because they were so wrong, so many times, no one trusts them..  That fact remains. In our lab all data from NOAA or NECI must be cross referenced with a neutral source to confirm the data's integrity. ETA: Before the data is used for any purpose..


----------



## DonaldFG (Oct 28, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> DonaldFG said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Summary Information |  National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)
IPCC Fifth Assessment Synthesis Report


----------



## DonaldFG (Oct 28, 2015)

Uncensored2008 said:


> DonaldFG said:
> 
> 
> > As I stated before, lies don't solve anything.
> ...



Where did I lie?  I quoted experts who know far more than I do.  I know you claim "they are lying".  But you need to prove that.  You are disagreeing with thousands of experts!


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 28, 2015)

DonaldFG said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > DonaldFG said:
> ...



Posting an appeal to your authority over and over again doesn't prove anything... It doesn't give it more credibility, and it doesn't negate the fact that the models on which they base their advice fail 100% of the time and have no predictive power..

You watermelons are all the same... any lie will do and you repeat them incessantly...


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Oct 28, 2015)

DonaldFG said:


> Where did I lie?  I quoted experts who know far more than I do.  I know you claim "they are lying".  But you need to prove that.  You are disagreeing with thousands of experts!



You keep posting encyclicals from your church. They are experts in reciting the dogma and scripture of your silly little cult. They are not expert in the presentation of fact.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 28, 2015)

This is the root of envirowackoism... Otmar Edenhoffer let the cat out of the bag some time ago..



> (EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. *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.
> 
> According to the Media Research Center, Edenhofer was “co-chair of the IPCC’s Working Group III, and was a lead author of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report released in 2007 which controversially concluded, ‘Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.’”



Its never been about  the earths climate, it has always been about control of people.

Source

ETA:  If you control Oil, gas and coal you control how a people can feed themselves, move about, and live without government intervention and intrusion.  By making these inaccessible or to expensive you place chains on the people limiting their abilities to support themselves, be self sufficient and live without the need of large government..  Socialists think this is unfair, but poverty and death is all socialism brings.. History is not kind to the failed socialism experiment, that is why James Town, once given to the colonists as their own thrived, where they would have surly died. Americas took that lesson and thrived. Now some want to place us back into that bondage... No thank you!


----------



## koshergrl (Oct 28, 2015)

bear513 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > blastoff said:
> ...


 Yes, meet OR.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 28, 2015)

DonaldFG said:


> blastoff said:
> 
> 
> > Wasn't there a headline or two in the last week or so warning of a coming mini ice age?
> ...


I completely agree, can you show us your evidence on how brutal 20 PPM of CO2 is?  Please post up those test results that show the devastation that is possible with 20 PPM of extra CO2 in the atmosphere.  Let's see it?  Me as a skeptic have been waiting two years now.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 28, 2015)

DonaldFG said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > DonaldFG said:
> ...


no they didn't, obubbacare could have been defunked and the 75% of americans could have kept their plans instead of trying to change things for 10%.  But facts aren't your strong suit as represented in your OP.  Clueless is you.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 28, 2015)

DonaldFG said:


> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...


funny stuff right there.  No evidence of anything except that there is a pause for 15 years. BTW, while CO2 went up 20 PPM.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Oct 28, 2015)

DonaldFG said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > DonaldFG said:
> ...



Terrible by who's definition?
Yours? The government?

Bet you are like Nancy you piece of shit  " they don't know what's good for them We know what's good for them"

I hate nanny state , control freak cock suckers like you.

Stay the fuck out of my personal business Jack ass.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 28, 2015)

daws101 said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> > DonaldFG said:
> ...


and yours through liberal propaganda, so what's your argument.  They are opposite opinions, why are you afraid of mine/ ours?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 28, 2015)

daws101 said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


says the man drinking kool-aid every day

Since he has no evidence that supports his envirowacko claim.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 28, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Scientists demand obama use RICO act to prosecute global warming deniers. | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> IT seams there are fools who think that use of RICO is a smart thing...


it would actually in effect, hurt the left, since evidence would be needed to support the hypothesis, and we all know they have zero evidence.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 28, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > DonaldFG said:
> ...


old socks, what part of the atmosphere are you saying?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 28, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > DonaldFG said:
> ...


well when they do present some evidence, we'll look at it.  To date you and your scientist friends have presented zero facts.  Models are not fact.  Sorry pal, just ain't.  You can believe that until you're in your grave, but they ain't.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 28, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Didn't finish high school, eh.


seems you didn't, nice.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 28, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> As we see these "Globull warmers" are becoming Dangerous to us suggesting they use RICO.
> wtf


Steph, it would be a good thing for us.  It would actually make them show us their data.  Funny eh?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 28, 2015)

PredFan said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...


I think he replied to the wrong post.  I'm just saying he's a skeptic too.  Posted against the OP.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 28, 2015)

daws101 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


you know that's a volley right?  In other words, back at you.  Show us what 20 PPM of CO2's magic is.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 28, 2015)

DonaldFG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > DonaldFG said:
> ...


there's that word again,'consensus'  show me where that word is part of science, just further proves you have no idea about environments and climate studies.  So bring on RICO


----------



## jc456 (Oct 28, 2015)

DonaldFG said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > DonaldFG said:
> ...


man another volley. swhoooosh, back at you!

Where are your facts?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 28, 2015)

DonaldFG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Davros said:
> ...



And another volley......swooosh, good game, but I have the lead, it was your serve and you failed to produce the facts.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 28, 2015)

daws101 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


wow how white of you!!!  he can keep his own opinions to climate and the OP.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 28, 2015)

jc456 said:


> DonaldFG said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



He has run out of broken models... Again...





Source: Dr Roy Spencer


----------



## daws101 (Oct 28, 2015)

jc456 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Where_r_my_Keys said:
> ...


Nice false assumption. 
I don't fear your opinion however I do fear the consequences of inaction .
Even if climate change was a hoax our waste and pollution will if not acted upon will kill us just surely as climate change would.


----------



## daws101 (Oct 28, 2015)

jc456 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Tipsycatlover said:
> ...


I don't?  Come to California and see for yourself .
You seem like like a cherry flavor kool-aid guy or is it the new denier dingle berry flavor?


----------



## jc456 (Oct 28, 2015)

daws101 said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


Based on what?  See you all put out these one liners like you have all of this data.  And yet, when queried for the data, you ain't got it. SO produce your fear mongering data and let's see how damaging it is.


----------



## jc456 (Oct 28, 2015)

daws101 said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


what's in California?


----------



## boilermaker55 (Oct 28, 2015)

How?



bear513 said:


> Once again liberals prove they love censorship and hate the 1st amendment


----------



## daws101 (Oct 28, 2015)

jc456 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


 So you are more worried about keeping the herd calm then the consequences of doing nothing?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 28, 2015)

daws101 said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Inaction for what?  Your localized dry pattern or the fact liberals stopped water planning and threw the money away..?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 28, 2015)

daws101 said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


Consequences for what?


----------



## daws101 (Oct 28, 2015)

jc456 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Remember when I said  you can't be that ignorant? 
You've just proven me wrong! 
Congratulations!


----------



## daws101 (Oct 28, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


False!


----------



## daws101 (Oct 28, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


Doing nothing .


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 28, 2015)

daws101 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



What are you blathering about?  Provide some verifiable facts.  The Paleo record is quite clear, most of Cali is in desert or is an arid region.  Dry spells last upwards of 200 years with occasional wet spells of about 30 years..


----------



## jc456 (Oct 28, 2015)

daws101 said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


doing nothing?  what does that mean.  What is it you're doing?  Me I'm working, taking care of my family.  What are my consequences?  I'm sorry but I have no idea what you're talking about.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 28, 2015)

daws101 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


To correct what ?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Oct 28, 2015)

boilermaker55 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Once again liberals prove they love censorship and hate the 1st amendment
> ...




Well let's see... there's this jackass on USMB that is demanding that the Federal Government abuse its authority to silence those laughing at the Chicken Little Cult. 

So there's THAT.

Another example would be the recent IRS attempt to silence the Tea Party, through the abuse of its power.  Which it appears, may well end up getting the IRS commissioner impeached, but that's yet to be seen.

So there's that too... .

I suppose ya could add in the incessant abuse of reason and the english language, wherein the Left trots out little word bombs designed to silence opposition to it's culture killing lunacy; words such as: homophobe, racist, HATE!, BIGOT, etc, etc... .


----------



## jc456 (Oct 28, 2015)

daws101 said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...


well dude, what is so special about climate and California.  I'm sorry, I ain't no mind reader.  What is your concern?  Is it drought?  So you're saying that 20 PPM of CO2 caused a drought?  Is that what you're trying to say?  Let me ask you, how long has California been having droughts?  Do you even know that answer?

BTW, California was a desert way before 20 PPM of CO2 went up in the atmosphere.  So I'm still lost at what it is you think I should know.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Oct 28, 2015)

jc456 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


As has been repeatedly mentioned...

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA IS A DESERT!

(For the Intellectually Less Fortunate, a desert is a dry, barren area of land, especially one covered with sand, that is characteristically void of, or found with little in the way of water resources, lightly covered in sparse vegetation.)

Therefore Southern California is NOT suffering a drought.  Southern California is OVER POPULATED, FOR A DESERT AND IS CONSUMING VASTLY GREATER LEVELS OF WATER THAN THE DESERT ENVIRONMENT CAN SUSTAIN.

The only thing that ever made southern California significantly inhabitable was THE COLORADO RIVER, where Southern California has received most of its water for most of its modern existence.  The population of SC is simply now considerably larger than that resource can sustain.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 28, 2015)

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



The Hover Dam was created to give water to that arid region and produce power.  Liberals in California spent the money that was supposed to be for water systems to keep it habitable on other things. They threw it away on social programs and threw away their future..

I guess there is irony to the phrase; Stupid is, as stupid does...


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys (Oct 28, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> The Hover Dam was created to give water to that arid region and produce power.  Liberals in California spent the money that was supposed to be for water systems to keep it habitable on other things. They threw it away on social programs and threw away their future..
> 
> I guess there is irony to the phrase; Stupid is, as stupid does...



Yep... ya NAILED IT!


----------



## daws101 (Oct 28, 2015)

jc456 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


 that's all good.  

The best climate cost estimates we have come from the private sector: industry-funded research centers like the American Petroleum Institute. Businesses and industry have both the most at stake and the most to gain from knowing precisely what will happen, given that their assets are exposed to unanticipated climate events. They need to forecast losses and put recovery plans in place. 

For example, a report from the Carbon Disclosure Project reported on a survey of more than 2,000 companies and found that 44 percent of them had suffered a disruption in production from rainfall or drought and 31 percent had experienced higher production costs. A new report from the Partnership for Resilience and Environmental Preparedness provides detailed guidelines on how companies might assess the resilience of their supply chains to climate disruptions, and gives examples of how Levi Strauss and Starbucks have managed climate risks by helping their suppliers reduce water use in cotton or adapt coffee production to warmer temperatures.

Some of the most detailed data comes from global insurers. A case in point, the Thai floods of 2011 inundated the automobile and electronics manufacturing facilities that had been built on former rice paddies in the floodplain of the Chao Praya River, near Bangkok, and caused losses estimated at more than $45 billion, reducing Thai economic growth and seriously affecting the profits of companies such as Sony and Honda. Toyota reported losses of almost one quarter million automobiles and suspended production lines across Southeast Asia and North America. Because of the concentration of computer hard-disk manufacturing in the flooded industrial parks, prices of desk and laptop hard drives doubled worldwide. There were several studies comparing the flood's impacts on different sectors and companies.

The reinsurer Swiss Re advertises a proprietary web tool which maps environmental vulnerability to earthquakes, floods and climate events on its home page. Users can tailor their investigation down to their countries cities, infrastructure, and economic assets.

Even though corporations frequently withhold specific data on operations, strategy, and performance for reasons of competitive advantage, there are many businesses interested enough in climate risks to provide information to researchers and analysts skilled enough to undertake studies. More importantly, businesses belong to associations, which regularly conduct impact reviews of such topics as trade, regulatory change, and workforce development. By aggregating research findings across firms in an industry, this type of information is used to conduct strategic assessments of likely consequences of threats and opportunities.


What Are the Economic Consequences of Climate Change?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 28, 2015)

daws101 said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Too Funny:

This report is a "what if" report.  The problem is the model is broken and their "what if" is a crap shoot with 36 sided dice..  Its statistical relevance is no better than finding one piece of dog crap in a pile of it..

Its kind of telling that it does not address government meddling in free markets and the damage that is causing..


----------



## daws101 (Oct 28, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


 wow nice false comparison


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 28, 2015)

daws101 said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Worse still, beyond the statistical irrelevance is the damage done by excessive regulations and agenda driven damages.

You guys live and die by models and never look at empirical evidence.  What is it with people and their fantasy land?

The models they are using for their analysis have all failed to predict anything.  They are so wrong that its worse than being wrong.. to the point of absurdity.

ETA: one of the question they asked buisness owners was; Has your buisness been affected by weather related damages?  Holy crap, how ambiguous can you get?  If you answered yes, they claimed it was from climate change...  This is one for the round file..


----------



## daws101 (Oct 28, 2015)




----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 28, 2015)

daws101 said:


>



Let me refute your bull shit with facts..

Legates Et Al...






Funny how Cook and Nuttercellie threw out all but 77 papers because they didn't say what they wanted.. Kind of like Mann throwing out 17 of his trees and keep just the one that appeared to prove him right... Never mind the majority that said his theory was bull shit.  Most ethical scientists would have revisited their theroys..


----------



## daws101 (Oct 28, 2015)

*Myths vs. Facts: Denial of Petitions for Reconsideration of the Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act*
*Myth:* The University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) emails prove that temperature data and trends were manipulated.

*Fact:* Not true. Petitioners say that emails disclosed from CRU provide evidence of a conspiracy to manipulate data. The media coverage after the emails were released was based on email statements quoted out of context and on unsubstantiated theories of conspiracy. The CRU emails do not show either that the science is flawed or that the scientific process has been compromised. EPA carefully reviewed the CRU emails and found no indication of improper data manipulation or misrepresentation of results.

*Myth:* The jury is still out on climate change and CRU emails undermine the credibility of climate change science overall.

*Fact:* Climate change is real and it is happening now. The U.S. Global Change Research Program, the National Academy of Sciences, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have each independently concluded that warming of the climate system in recent decades is "unequivocal." This conclusion is not drawn from any one source of data but is based on multiple lines of evidence, including three worldwide temperature datasets showing nearly identical warming trends as well as numerous other independent indicators of global warming (e.g., rising sea levels, shrinking Arctic sea ice). Some people have "cherry-picked" a limited selection of CRU email statements to draw broad, unsubstantiated conclusions about the validity of all climate science.

*Myth:* The CRU emails and several errors found in the most recent IPCC report undermine the credibility of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.

*Fact:* The IPCC's primary conclusions are based on an assessment of thousands of individual studies and collective insights from the comprehensive climate science literature. Although many errors were alleged, EPA confirmed only two errors. The small number of documented errors are not central to IPCC's main conclusions or to EPA's Endangerment Finding. In a report of such magnitude, a few errors do not undermine the credibility of the entire work of the IPCC. The process used by the IPCC stands as one of the most comprehensive, rigorous, and transparent ever conducted on a complex set of scientific issues.

*Myth:* EPA misstepped when it did not do its own scientific analysis of climate change to inform the Endangerment Finding and instead relied on existing scientific assessments.

*Fact:* EPA relied on major scientific assessments, including reports from the U.S. Global Change Research Program, National Academy of Sciences, and IPCC, because they represent the best available information to determine the state of climate change science. These assessments are designed to address the breadth and scope of all published literature and undergo multiple levels of rigorous review. This approach ensures that EPA benefits from the depth and strength of thousands of climate scientists.

Myths vs. Facts: Denial of Petitions for Reconsideration of the Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act | Climate Change | US EPA


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 28, 2015)

daws101 said:


> *Myths vs. Facts: Denial of Petitions for Reconsideration of the Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act*
> *Myth:* The University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) emails prove that temperature data and trends were manipulated.
> 
> *Fact:* Not true. Petitioners say that emails disclosed from CRU provide evidence of a conspiracy to manipulate data. The media coverage after the emails were released was based on email statements quoted out of context and on unsubstantiated theories of conspiracy. The CRU emails do not show either that the science is flawed or that the scientific process has been compromised. EPA carefully reviewed the CRU emails and found no indication of improper data manipulation or misrepresentation of results.
> ...



You had better revisit your facts... most are conjecture and out right fabrications..  Gawd I love it when they cry "CONSENSUS"  when the facts do not support their position.


----------



## daws101 (Oct 28, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?

*The Empirical Evidence*
As temperatures started to rise, scientists became more and more interested in the cause. Many theories were proposed. All save one have fallen by the wayside, discarded for lack of evidence. One theory alone has stood the test of time, strengthened by experiments. 

We know CO2 absorbs and re-emits longwave radiation (Tyndall). The theory of greenhouse gases predicts that if we increase the proportion of greenhouse gases, more warming will occur (Arrhenius).

Scientists have measured the influence of CO2 on both incoming solar energy and outgoing long-wave radiation. Less longwave radiation is escaping to space at the specific wavelengths of greenhouse gases. Increased longwave radiation is measured at the surface of the Earth at the same wavelengths.

*These data provide empirical evidence for the predicted effect of CO2.*


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 28, 2015)

daws101 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



You keep on drinking the SKS boys kookaid...

Here are the facts on CO2 and they dont include a positive reaction by water vapor either.





Too funny that you cant produce even basic facts or evidence to support your religious dogma.  The graph clearly shows that the warming you folks were screaming about didn't happen and can not happen..  If we had seen a temp rise as illustrated by the 2010 mark you might have had a chance... That just shows how wrong your models are and why they have failed.

How does it feel to be shown how totally wrong you idiots are?


----------



## DonaldFG (Oct 28, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> Too funny that you cant produce even basic facts or evidence to support your religious dogma.  The graph clearly shows that the warming you folks were screaming about didn't happen and wont..
> 
> How does it feel to be shown how totally wrong you idiots are?



False documents and propaganda are amazingly easy to create.  However, centuries of research and the volumes of factual data cannot be refuted by propaganda.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 28, 2015)

DonaldFG said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Too funny that you cant produce even basic facts or evidence to support your religious dogma.  The graph clearly shows that the warming you folks were screaming about didn't happen and wont..
> ...



Lets expose you for the anti-science person you are..

First of all here is the LOG for CO2:




This is confirmed by empirical experiment in Boulder Colorado's Atmospheric Lab.  This shows the rate of expected warming in a closed cylinder by CO2 and empirical evidence in our open atmosphere.

The graph in my previous post was that of Dr Spencer with my annotations.




Dr Spencer plotted the natural variation rate and the CO2 enhanced rate that the IPCC and the EPA uses as justification for their endangerment finding and power grabs.

The rise in temp is consistent with the empirical lab results and the IPCC's own AR1 stating the natural variation rate for temp rise.

Given the empirical data and the IPCC's own finding of the natural variation rate, there is no warming that can be attributed to CO2. The EPA's endangerment finding is not only a lie but it is soundly refuted by empirical evidence.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 28, 2015)

daws101 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



I just shredded your "predicted effect" as garbage by empirical evidence.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 28, 2015)

daws101 said:


>



You mean "pal reviewed," not peer reviewed.


----------



## PredFan (Oct 28, 2015)

DonaldFG said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > DonaldFG said:
> ...



Yes numbskull, that cash cow. They aren't going to do anything to jeopardize their careers, and reporting anything other than what the government wants to hear will end their careers and their paychecks. That should be simple enough for even you to understand.


----------



## westwall (Oct 28, 2015)

DonaldFG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > DonaldFG said:
> ...








Consensus opinion is first off an appeal to authority so is by definition a logic fail (look it up) and secondly consensus is the language of politicians, NOT scientists.  The consensus opinion was that the Earth was flat.  Scientists proved that assertion wrong.  The only fraud being committed is by the climatologists who have perverted science and actively committed scientific fraud to perpetrate the largest confidence game in the history of mankind.  

I would LOVE to see this bullshit go to court.  There we get to introduce the evidence that your hero's try like hell to bury.  I suggest your wish might not end the way you think.


----------



## daws101 (Oct 28, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


Also funny that when you clowns say that you are without fail wrong.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 28, 2015)

daws101 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



No, the funny part is watch'in you alarmists with your heads up your asses get beat down with facts.. Now that's funny..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 28, 2015)

daws101 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Why dont you trot your silly little liberal alarmist ass over to SKS and get some more BS for me to shred.. I'm sure Miriam O'Brien's site HOTWHOOPER can bring me some laughs too..

WHy dont you try using your brain for once and thinking the problem through and using real science, not the political made up crap you have been posting.


----------



## daws101 (Oct 28, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


When you present credible evidence then you might be on to something.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 28, 2015)

daws101 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Funny; The data for everything I posted is publicly available and open for review.  And everything you posted is hidden.. Hmmmmmmmm...  I wonder why its hidden?


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 28, 2015)

daws101 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



The funny part is that you idiots believe you haven't been proven totally wrong.


----------



## daws101 (Oct 28, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


Maybe because "we"haven't? 
Also you clowns has this habit of premature ejaculations of victory.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 28, 2015)

daws101 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Of course you have been proven totally and utterly wrong.  You're just too stupid to know it.  The empirical evidence proves you wrong every year for the last 20 years.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Oct 28, 2015)

daws101 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Ya do know sheep that mars atmosphere is made up of 95% C02


----------



## daws101 (Oct 28, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


false


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 28, 2015)

daws101 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Wrong again.


----------



## westwall (Oct 28, 2015)

daws101 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...










No, it is factual.  Every time a claim is made by a warmist it has been found to be false.  First it was global warming that was bleaching the corals.  Now it is known that sun screen is the culprit.  This happens every time one of your claims is actually checked.


----------



## daws101 (Oct 28, 2015)

bear513 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


Yes your point?  
Making it deadly to all oxygen breathing life .
A few billion years ago so was ours 
The only life on earth was an anirobic coral that breathed co2 and produced oxygen insuring it's own distruction.


----------



## daws101 (Oct 28, 2015)

westwall said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


Right I"ll consider the source on that little gem.


----------



## westwall (Oct 28, 2015)

daws101 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...










No, you'll flee like a little coward and ignore factual data that is presented which blows your puerile shit out of the water.  You NEVER post factual data.  You, like all of your fellow morons, conflate opinion with fact so post opinion pieces all the time thinking they actually mean something.

Face it dude you don't know jack.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 28, 2015)

daws101 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



No, this is failure...





Reality is far from the models paths...  This is epic failure of all of the IPCC's models.. Like I posted before, the models have no reliability or predictive powers.. Thus all your predictions of doom and gloom are just unfounded conjecture.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 28, 2015)

daws101 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



* What is Mars' atmosphere made of?*
_The atmosphere of Mars is about 100 times thinner than Earth's, and it is 95 percent carbon dioxide. Here's a breakdown of its composition:
_

_Carbon dioxide: 95.32 percent_
_Nitrogen: 2.7 percent_
_Argon: 1.6 percent_
_Oxygen: 0.13 percent_
_Carbon monoxide: 0.08 percent_
_Also, minor amounts of: water, nitrogen oxide, neon, hydrogen-deuterium-oxygen, krypton and xenon_

Source


You know, you have posted a lot of crap, most of it factually a lie or intentionally misleading.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 28, 2015)

This requires repeating...

*There is only one way for science to regain respect.

* They must be open and honest.
* They must make all data public. If you publish it, publish all of it!
* They must show their work (math, methods, Etc)
*They must be transparent and be OPEN TO PUBLIC DEBATE.. This includes multidisciplinary review as all areas of science are part of climate science.
* They must remember the key roll of the scientific method is to disprove the hypothesis by systematically ruling out all other possibilities.
* They must remain skeptical of all findings.*

*The science is NOT SETTLED..* *it is never settled, ever!*

Climate SCIENCE IS NOT CLEAR because the science has been politicized and is being used for a world domination agenda.

The word "CONSENSUS" is political and not scientific.

Threatening those, who do not agree with your religion, with prison or death is not even funny, we might mistake you for a radical Muslim extremist..


----------



## Wyatt earp (Oct 28, 2015)

daws101 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...




What was the temperature?

I dare ya to post it


----------



## daws101 (Oct 28, 2015)

westwall said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


What is it with you clowns making false claims and false assumptions?
I fact checked your sunscreen claim it is only partially correct .
Nothing I read stated, inferd or anything about it being the only or main cause of coral bleaching and die off.
However many articles did state that climate change I.e. warming of ocean water is main cause along with sunscreen,.  Sewage.  Particulate matter .
For the die off.
You stated that sunscreen  was the main agent of distruction , that's blatantly false and bad science  bordering on pseudoscience.


----------



## daws101 (Oct 28, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


You keep believing that if it helps you sleep better .


----------



## daws101 (Oct 28, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


You guys always say that when you are on shaky scientific ground
Please post anything I said about mars that is false.


----------



## daws101 (Oct 28, 2015)

bear513 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


What temperature? And where mars or earth's


----------



## DonaldFG (Oct 31, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> DonaldFG said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



Hmm, the empirical evidence of one man.  Very impressive.  The IPCC has empirical evidence from thousands of climatologists.

As I said, fake evidence (propaganda) is easy to create.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 31, 2015)

DonaldFG said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > DonaldFG said:
> ...




Too funny; 

It is the belief of thousands of scientists who dare to ask real questions. Even scientists in Russia have figured it out.  Why cant you?


----------



## westwall (Oct 31, 2015)

DonaldFG said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > DonaldFG said:
> ...








No.  They have manufactured evidence from 74 climatologists.  All of whom are paid to generate their crap.  All of whom are helping the UN to concentrate its power and all of whom hope to get even more wealthy from their "sustainability" companies they have all founded, and who's continued profit depend on the laws they hope the various politicians will pass to help their companies.

Follow the money honey.  The IPCC wants the world to spend 76 trillion dollars (low estimate) to completely reform the energy system of the world.  The big beneficiaries are the very 1 percent that you all claim to hate...


----------



## DonaldFG (Oct 31, 2015)

westwall said:


> DonaldFG said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Science functions by verification of others in the field.  Thousands of verifications is pretty convincing.  That's consensus.


----------



## westwall (Oct 31, 2015)

DonaldFG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > DonaldFG said:
> ...









Not when the supposed peer reviewers are the same small group over and over.  Hell one paper was reviewed by the mans wife.
You really need to look into the level of corruption to which the peer review process has been subjected to in the climatology field. Hell, well known charlatans have a better predictive track record than these clowns.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 31, 2015)

westwall said:


> DonaldFG said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



The incest of the alarmists is stunning.  People like COOK, among others, who created false personas and peer reviewed their own work are rampant.  The gate keeping of journals and other processes that were to ensure that one sided BS didn't pass muster have been badly corrupted.

Its hard to trust anything coming out of the warming camp these days without cross referencing and verifying with private, untainted sources that have credibility.


----------



## DonaldFG (Oct 31, 2015)

westwall said:


> No, it is factual.  Every time a claim is made by a warmist it has been found to be false.  First it was global warming that was bleaching the corals.  Now it is known that sun screen is the culprit.  This happens every time one of your claims is actually checked.



You know that is not true.  But I hope the Koch brothers are paying you well for saying it.


----------



## PK1 (Oct 31, 2015)

DonaldFG said:


> Corporate control of government has gone too far when scientific research is muted or severely misrepresented.  Good government uses science to help determine its policies for the common good.  But when corrupted individuals get into positions of power, science reports are covered up and the authors become frustrated, give up and quit, or get laid off.
> 
> Most scientists are not rich.  They don't do their type of work for the money, but for the quest for knowledge.  So, they don't have the legal means to protect themselves from powerful corporate interests - unless their government does it for them.  Similarly, the rest of us citizens expect the same from our government.
> 
> ...



---
Yep, those who criticize leading scientists and their international consensus are either:
1) ignorant of scientific methods and/or 
2) motivated by greed.

No wonder there are few Republican scientists in the USA.
.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 31, 2015)

DonaldFG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > No, it is factual.  Every time a claim is made by a warmist it has been found to be false.  First it was global warming that was bleaching the corals.  Now it is known that sun screen is the culprit.  This happens every time one of your claims is actually checked.
> ...



Right to far out left logical fallacy and deception.. ZOOOOOM and all without a shred of empirical evidence.  That seems to be an alarmist trait that is common without fail.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 31, 2015)

DonaldFG said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > DonaldFG said:
> ...



What they have has been proven to be fraudulent.


----------



## bripat9643 (Oct 31, 2015)

PK1 said:


> DonaldFG said:
> 
> 
> > Corporate control of government has gone too far when scientific research is muted or severely misrepresented.  Good government uses science to help determine its policies for the common good.  But when corrupted individuals get into positions of power, science reports are covered up and the authors become frustrated, give up and quit, or get laid off.
> ...



Typical libturd appeal to authority.  When will you ever learn?


----------



## westwall (Oct 31, 2015)

PK1 said:


> DonaldFG said:
> 
> 
> > Corporate control of government has gone too far when scientific research is muted or severely misrepresented.  Good government uses science to help determine its policies for the common good.  But when corrupted individuals get into positions of power, science reports are covered up and the authors become frustrated, give up and quit, or get laid off.
> ...









Yes, those climatologists are indeed a greedy lot.  They have received over 100 billion dollars in taxpayer dollars over the last decade and a half and they have nothing to show for it.  The fact that you scientific illiterates don't understand is nothing new.  You're just the latest bunch to be conned by the latest iteration of Piltdown Man.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 31, 2015)

Deliberate falsification of facts in the name of science for the economic benefit of corporations meets the legal test for RICO investigation.

If a corporation is found guilty of RICO offenses, then the stock holders can be fined three times the sum of the dividends they received during the time of infractions.

Any who argue on their behalf willing, knowingly, and voluntarily can be charge with conspiracy to further the RICO crimes.

Good.

This is my only post, because I know, despite the wailing and crying, because it will stand the test.  Let the wailing begin.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 31, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Deliberate falsification of facts in the name of science for the economic benefit of corporations meets the legal test for RICO investigation.
> 
> If a corporation is found guilty of RICO offenses, then the stock holders can be fined three times the sum of the dividends they received during the time of infractions.
> 
> ...



This can also be applied to government and their willful treason. Falsification of public records for their political gain, deprivation of constitutional rights and defrauding the populace. These too can be held to account under RICO.  Funny how your side seems to forget that..

The "organization" does not need to be privately owned under the law.

Technically, we could sue Lois Learner and the whole of the IRS under this act for their behaviors in politically targeting individuals and groups as their behavior was criminal in nature and organized to create a positive gain.


----------



## PK1 (Oct 31, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> > DonaldFG said:
> ...



---
I'm a liberal because i support science?
LOL!
In scientific research, we question "authority" all the time, but you would not know that, since you must be science-illiterate.
.


----------



## PK1 (Oct 31, 2015)

westwall said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> > DonaldFG said:
> ...



---
Looks to me that you are illiterate in science too.
There are lots of peer-reviewed publications to show for gov funded research from many countries in the world.
However, you probably would not understand what they mean.
.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Oct 31, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Deliberate falsification of facts in the name of science for the economic benefit of corporations meets the legal test for RICO investigation.
> 
> If a corporation is found guilty of RICO offenses, then the stock holders can be fined three times the sum of the dividends they received during the time of infractions.
> 
> ...



How are they going to prove it?
Build a time machine into the future


----------



## bripat9643 (Nov 1, 2015)

PK1 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PK1 said:
> ...



Who is "we?"

You don't know what science is.  You're a dumbass who believes he knows more than he actually does.


----------



## Crick (Nov 1, 2015)

Right back at you Paddie Boy.  And an asshole to boot.

Exxon Mobil is going to have to pay the price for their lies.  Just like the tobacco industry.  They paid billions.  Exxon will probably have to be liquidated to pay the tab.  A win-win for all.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Nov 1, 2015)

This guy resigned from his job five years ago because he came to realize that Climate Change is a huge scam.

Top Scientist Resigns Admitting Global Warming Is A Big Scam –...

"How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

"It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

"So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it…

"I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club."


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Nov 1, 2015)

Crick said:


> Right back at you Paddie Boy.  And an asshole to boot.
> 
> Exxon Mobil is going to have to pay the price for their lies.  Just like the tobacco industry.  They paid billions.  Exxon will probably have to be liquidated to pay the tab.  A win-win for all.



You are a blithering idiot. Ad Hominem does not prove your case, and of course the oil industry would pay for research to present their point of view and that does not undermine the credibility of the scientists involved you piece of shit.

Climate Change is a hoax ans the growing cooling of the Earth is proving it, thought NOAA keeps adjusting their temperature records up to hide it like they hid the decline in temperatures indicated in their tree ring data.

Fuck you and all your little acolytes because the Truth, sir, cannot be suppressed for ever and you and you ilk will long be hated and reviled for the scam artists you are.


----------



## bripat9643 (Nov 1, 2015)

Crick said:


> Right back at you Paddie Boy.  And an asshole to boot.
> 
> Exxon Mobil is going to have to pay the price for their lies.  Just like the tobacco industry.  They paid billions.  Exxon will probably have to be liquidated to pay the tab.  A win-win for all.



You and your ilk are the liars, and the American people are the ones who are going to pay if they fall for it, and they will pay dearly.


----------



## PK1 (Nov 1, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



---
Are you a scientist?
If not, then you're the "dumbass".
If you are a scientist, then one would assume you have self-respect.
.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 1, 2015)

PK1 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PK1 said:
> ...



Obviously you are not. All you have is adhomenim and name calling.  You present no facts but you demand that we do as you say...

"Who is more foolish?  The fool or the one who follows?" Wise words from fictional character- Obie Wan Kenobie


----------



## bripat9643 (Nov 1, 2015)

PK1 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PK1 said:
> ...



I don't have to be a scientist to know that you're a dumbass.  A sure sign of a dumbass is someone who says he trusts scientists even though the scientists are contradicting each other and even though the facts don't support their so-called "science."


----------



## PK1 (Nov 1, 2015)

bripat9643 said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...


---
Clearly, science is beyond your subjective intellect.
It's funny & sad at the same time that you don't understand your ignorance when you make comments like:
 "_scientists are contradicting each other and even though the facts don't support their so-called 'science.' _"

Facts? The facts are in the research *data*. Disputes among scientists are sometimes about *validity *of their *data.* That's why publication drafts are peer-reviewed to affirm research validity ... and then *interpretation* of valid data is discussed & debated before further research attempts may be done to refine conclusions.

Which scientists are "contradicting" others? With valid data from same fields? Can you cite an example?

At least you admit you're no scientist.
BTW, there is more *consensus* among actual scientific experts in their specialty (climatology) now than there was in physics when Einstein proposed his photon & relativity theories. Why? Einstein did not have data/facts to support his theories then (100+ yrs ago) like climatologists do now.
.


----------



## PK1 (Nov 1, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> > bripat9643 said:
> ...



---
"_words from fictional character- Obie Wan Kenobie_"
LOL!
You should stick with fiction.
.


----------



## rdean (Nov 1, 2015)

DonaldFG said:


> Corporate control of government has gone too far when scientific research is muted or severely misrepresented.  Good government uses science to help determine its policies for the common good.  But when corrupted individuals get into positions of power, science reports are covered up and the authors become frustrated, give up and quit, or get laid off.
> 
> Most scientists are not rich.  They don't do their type of work for the money, but for the quest for knowledge.  So, they don't have the legal means to protect themselves from powerful corporate interests - unless their government does it for them.  Similarly, the rest of us citizens expect the same from our government.
> 
> ...


Look at what an oil company did to our gulf and Republicans apologized to the oil company and kept away any meaningful investigation.  When you have people who do that against the best interests of the country in charge, there's not a lot we can do.  We can only hope that shrinking party shrinks faster than their increasing damage.


----------



## PK1 (Nov 1, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> This guy resigned from his job five years ago because he came to realize that Climate Change is a huge scam.
> 
> Top Scientist Resigns Admitting Global Warming Is A Big Scam –...
> 
> ...


---
Your example of climatology "dispute" is about this *one* case of a formerly respected physicist (dead 7 months later at age 87 & retired from research for 19 years) who criticized scientists *not in his own specialty*? He also contradicted his own affirmation of global warming in his publication 13 years earlier without presenting any facts/data, or interpreting any analyses to support his contradiction. WTF?

Here was the response from APS (physics):
October 12, 2010
_There is no truth to Dr. Lewis’ assertion that APS policy statements are driven by financial gain. To the contrary, as a membership organization of more than 48,000 physicists, APS adheres to rigorous ethical standards in developing its statements. The Society is open to review of its statements if members petition the APS Council – the Society’s democratically elected governing body – to do so.
Dr. Lewis’ specific charge that APS as an organization is benefitting financially from climate change funding is equally false. Neither the operating officers nor the elected leaders of the Society have a monetary stake in such funding. Moreover, relatively *few APS members conduct climate change research,* and therefore the vast majority of the Society’s members derive no personal benefit from such research support.

On the matter of global climate change, *APS notes that virtually all reputable scientists agree with the following observations:
Carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere due to human activity;
Carbon dioxide is an excellent infrared absorber, and therefore, its increasing presence in the atmosphere contributes to global warming; and
The dwell time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is hundreds of years*.
On these matters, APS judges the science to be quite clear. However, APS continues to recognize that climate models are far from adequate, and the extent of global warming and climatic disruptions produced by sustained increases in atmospheric carbon loading remain uncertain. In light of the significant settled aspects of the science, APS totally rejects Dr. Lewis’ claim that global warming is a “scam” and a “pseudoscientific fraud_.”
.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 1, 2015)

PK1 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > This guy resigned from his job five years ago because he came to realize that Climate Change is a huge scam.
> ...



Too funny; you cite a political statement which doesn't reflect the beliefs of its membership as proof of what?


----------



## Crick (Nov 1, 2015)

One demented octogenarian is hardly an indicator of the position of the majority of the membership.  Statements holding with AGW and the IPCC have been in place for years during which numerous conferences and meetings have taken place in which the membership could have raised any objections to their leader's actions.  But what have we seen?  Nothing.  The membership, like virtually every single person on the planet with a science education, accepts AGW as a valid description of the behavior of Earth's climate in the face of growing levels of anthropogenic GHGs.


----------



## PK1 (Nov 1, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


---
Are you blindly religious too?
Like the word "truth", you throw around the term "proof" and think it sticks on a wall?

What "proof" was i alluding to?
What "proof" did Lewis have to support his belief?
.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Nov 1, 2015)

PK1 said:


> Your example of climatology "dispute" is about this *one* case of a formerly respected physicist .... who criticized scientists *not in his own specialty*?
> .


What about  the example? 

Yes it was my example of dissent among scientists.

After that mangled sentence you go down hill.

Why dont you come back when you're sober?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Nov 1, 2015)

PK1 said:


> Are you blindly religious too?
> Like the word "truth", you throw around the term "proof" and think it sticks on a wall?
> 
> What "proof" was i alluding to?
> ...


Lol, do you have a point? 

The scientific establishments of Russia, China and India are also skeptical of Climate Change bullshit. 

The climate has ALWAYS changed, and there is no proof that it is driven mostly by carbon dioxide when there are many more green houses gases that are a far greater share of the atmosphere aside from CO2, doofus.

The point was that this scientist was blowing the whistle on all the Obamy federal funding going into 'research' in favor of Climate Change nonsense.

That is pretty much proven, and when the next Republican is elected he wont likely be a believer in your horse shit.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Nov 1, 2015)

Crick said:


> One demented octogenarian is hardly an indicator of the position of the majority of the membership.



No one ever said he was, so straw man fallacy once again.

He indicated the flood of Obamy monopoly money that has corrupted the climate change field into paid whores.


----------



## rdean (Nov 1, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> > Are you blindly religious too?
> ...


Russian scientists say climate change to blame for mysterious Siberia craters

Climate Change China Shows Its Seriousness

Indian scientists join protests over killings of prominent secularists

A day later, more than 100 scientists from leading Indian science institutes, including national award winners, three fellows of the UK Royal Society and a foreign associate of the US National Academy of Sciences, signed a second statement expressing deep concern over the “climate of intolerance and the ways in which science and reason are being eroded in the country”. The scientists lamented what they called “active promotion of irrational and sectarian thought by important functionaries of the government”.

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

Speaking of India, it looks like they could be talking about Republicans.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 1, 2015)

rdean said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > PK1 said:
> ...



Your straw man is in a huge pile of ashes..


----------



## PK1 (Nov 1, 2015)

JimBowie1958 said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> > Are you blindly religious too?
> ...


---
So, you avoided answering both my simple Q's because ... you can't?
Even a drunkard can see through your diversion! *LOL*.
Lewis must have been paid off by the rich denier orgs. Why else did he contradict his own climate change affirmation from his 1997 book .. without supplying data/research?

What did you not understand about this statement representing *MANY* (vs 1) physicists?

_"On the matter of global climate change, *APS notes that virtually all reputable scientists agree with the following observations:
Carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere due to human activity;
Carbon dioxide is an excellent infrared absorber, and therefore, its increasing presence in the atmosphere contributes to global warming; and
The dwell time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is hundreds of years*.
On these matters, APS judges the science to be quite clear._”
.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Nov 1, 2015)

PK1 said:


> So, you avoided answering both my simple Q's because ... you can't?
> .



Your questions are irrelevant and I dont have time to chase idiot geese.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 2, 2015)

PK1 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > PK1 said:
> ...



Another appeal to authority and a political statement as fact..  Epic fail!


----------



## PK1 (Nov 2, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


---
You don't reference authorities/experts to support your beliefs?
Ok then, why don't you provide your own evidence & logical analysis?
No can do?
LOL. Another lame debater!
.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 2, 2015)

DonaldFG said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > DonaldFG said:
> ...


and they stated there is a pause.  interesting, now how can that be if the amount of CO2 went up and CO2 drives climate?  See it's the paradox you can't get away from isn't it?  Wow, but enact the RICO and everything will come out.  I say go for it.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 2, 2015)

JakeStarkey said:


> Deliberate falsification of facts in the name of science for the economic benefit of corporations meets the legal test for RICO investigation.
> 
> If a corporation is found guilty of RICO offenses, then the stock holders can be fined three times the sum of the dividends they received during the time of infractions.
> 
> ...


let the facts come out.  I'm all for it, sign me up I want to see Mann's data set and all the emails, the left won't release.  See, you'd be opening your own pandora's box.  But hey, be naive and open it.I don't think one skeptic on here would be against it at all.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 2, 2015)

PK1 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PK1 said:
> ...


you support science?  hmmmmmm, then post some up here, let's see the data sets that prove the science you believe in.  Oh wait you can't, they won't release it.  So how is it you know, if you have no science to back your position that you back science?  A true paradox.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 2, 2015)

PK1 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > PK1 said:
> ...


peer review, the good old boys club.  funny you fall on that sword.  Blog review with actual data is more important these days thanks to the internet, the Peers are exposed for the buddy system and ain't it funny?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 2, 2015)

PK1 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > PK1 said:
> ...


I think the gentleman asked you who 'we' was in your post.  Are you a scientist?  because if you are not, then you again would become the dumbass and an even dumberass since you brought it back up.  Funny stuff though, just what rico is about.


----------



## jc456 (Nov 2, 2015)

rdean said:


> DonaldFG said:
> 
> 
> > Corporate control of government has gone too far when scientific research is muted or severely misrepresented.  Good government uses science to help determine its policies for the common good.  But when corrupted individuals get into positions of power, science reports are covered up and the authors become frustrated, give up and quit, or get laid off.
> ...


what does this have to do with RICO?  I'm sorry, but do you ever have anything to say that is worthy of print?


----------



## jc456 (Nov 2, 2015)

PK1 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > PK1 said:
> ...


_"On the matter of global climate change, *APS notes that virtually all reputable scientists agree with the following observations:
Carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere due to human activity;
Carbon dioxide is an excellent infrared absorber, and therefore, its increasing presence in the atmosphere contributes to global warming; and
The dwell time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is hundreds of years*._
*On these matters, APS judges the science to be quite clear.”*

so bubba, post up the experiment that proves any of that bolded text actually does anything to weather or climate.  I'm waiting.  Been waiting for two years now.  Still crickets.  still today.

BTW, if you have no experiment, then you have no science.  And then you've contradicted yourself.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 3, 2015)

PK1 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > PK1 said:
> ...



You have yet to supply any facts showing the masses of those organizations actually believe it..   There are several organizations who now refuse to make any statement about CAGW as their membership is so divided on the issue.  Your 97% consensus is a lie as is the use of political statements as proof..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Nov 3, 2015)

PK1 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > PK1 said:
> ...



Funny you should ask... I have posted this many times and not one of you left wit loons can answer even the most basic of questions..

Below are two rates of warming from the Hadcrut3 lower troposphere. One is from the period 1900 through 1950 and the the other is 1951 through 2000.  Below each is  the rate of warming.







The trend for the period 1900-1950 is 0.51 deg C or 0.103/decade

This trend occurred before CO2 became a rapidly increasing according to the IPCC and is near or *is the Natural Variational rate*.

The trend for 1951-2000 is 0.50 deg C or 0.100 deg C/decade.

This means that the two rates of warming are statistically insignificant DESPITE the rapid rise in CO2 and equal to NATURAL VARIATION..






So by simple observation we can see the problem with the hypothesis of runaway temp caused by CO2. During the time they claim runway rise it was nothing of the sort and *even given the rise in CO2 there was no discernible increase in that natural rise.*


Now lets play on the last 18 years 8 months where there has been no warming yet CO2 has risen 24ppm.

There is no coupling of water vapor to CO2.  Empirical evidence says it does not exist.  Even CO2 is not acting as it does in the lab while inside of our atmosphere. Were only seeing about 45% of what we see in the lab for temp rise with just CO2 alone in the atmosphere.

CO2 isn't driving anything by empirical evidence.. What warming we are seeing can be attributed to ocean circulations change and natural variation..  

Now show me how CO2 is a problem?


----------

