# MTP: Climate Change Discussion - no Deniers



## JLW (Dec 30, 2018)

Watching Meet the Press.  They have dedicated the whole hour to climate change.  They have no deniers on the panel and as Chuck Todd correctly stated the science is long since settled.  Now it is time to discuss  solutions.

A recent poll shows even a majority of Republicans do not dispute anthropogenic climate change.
Opinion | More Republicans Than You Think Support Action on Climate Change

I applaud Meet the Press. Time to push deniers and their pseudo science to the curb or back into closet. Choose your metaphor.  They are just standing in the way and are no more than obstructionists.

We need to discuss only solutions and adaptations.


----------



## harmonica (Dec 30, 2018)

who cares?
we can't stop any climate change


----------



## depotoo (Dec 30, 2018)

So you applaud bias and non diversity.  Got it.


----------



## JLW (Dec 30, 2018)

depotoo said:


> So you applaud bias and non diversity.  Got it.


I applaud the need to change the debate to action and adaption.  The science is settled.  There are people still debating whether the earth is round.  Time to move on or we will get nowhere.


----------



## skookerasbil (Dec 30, 2018)

Nobody cares about climate change Chuck......not even debatable.


----------



## Olde Europe (Dec 30, 2018)

depotoo said:


> So you applaud bias and non diversity.  Got it.



One side debating facts, and another farting or making otherwise vulgar, ignorant noises, is not diversity, and excluding the farters isn't "bias".  It's just common sense, and a necessary precondition for a real debate.


----------



## Correll (Dec 30, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> Watching Meet the Press.  They have dedicated the whole hour to climate change.  They have no deniers on the panel and as Chuck Todd correctly stated the science is long since settled.  Now it is time to discuss  solutions.
> 
> A recent poll shows even a majority of Republicans do not dispute anthropogenic climate change.
> Opinion | More Republicans Than You Think Support Action on Climate Change
> ...




Do you own a car?


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Dec 30, 2018)

Olde Europe said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > So you applaud bias and non diversity.  Got it.
> ...


How can you have a real debate when the other side said "Global Warming science is settled, end of debate".  That right there nullified any bullshit from the liberalleftards.

The Dangers Of 'Settled Science' | PSI Intl


----------



## depotoo (Dec 30, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > So you applaud bias and non diversity.  Got it.
> ...


First, climate science is never settled science.  
Action and adaptation?  Show me where the multi billions, some estimate over a trillion, has resulted in any meaningful action or adaption.


----------



## JLW (Dec 30, 2018)

depotoo said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> > depotoo said:
> ...


Well that is the purpose of the debate.  To get to a solution that will work.


----------



## saveliberty (Dec 30, 2018)

Spend an hour talking about a subject we didn't create, nor can solve.  At least Todd can't show his normal bias on this one and the show was funnier.


----------



## Mac1958 (Dec 30, 2018)

A comprehensive conversation requires a wide range of viewpoints, including contrarians.

You never know what might pop up.

We just no longer care about that, because we're no longer listening.
.


----------



## Correll (Dec 30, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > Johnlaw said:
> ...



You guys have been doing that for decades now. Asking for a tally of results is completely reasonable.


Why are you hesitating to brag about all that you greenies have done?


----------



## depotoo (Dec 30, 2018)

Mac1958 said:


> A comprehensive conversation requires a wide range of viewpoints, including contrarians.
> 
> You never know what might pop up.
> 
> ...


And therein lies the problem.


----------



## danielpalos (Dec 30, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> Watching Meet the Press.  They have dedicated the whole hour to climate change.  They have no deniers on the panel and as Chuck Todd correctly stated the science is long since settled.  Now it is time to discuss  solutions.
> 
> A recent poll shows even a majority of Republicans do not dispute anthropogenic climate change.
> Opinion | More Republicans Than You Think Support Action on Climate Change
> ...


Climate change happens, regardless of Man's input to our climate.  

Modern technology in ancient underground cities could enable a greater understanding.

And, we need new Cities in more optimal locations.  How many jobs do we want to create.


----------



## Correll (Dec 30, 2018)

danielpalos said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> > Watching Meet the Press.  They have dedicated the whole hour to climate change.  They have no deniers on the panel and as Chuck Todd correctly stated the science is long since settled.  Now it is time to discuss  solutions.
> ...




Wow. That was coherent and on topic. Who are you, and why are you posting under Danielpalos's account?


----------



## JLW (Dec 30, 2018)

Correll said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> > depotoo said:
> ...


Are you serious?  Look at pictures of US cities in the 60s and 70s and as they are now.  Are you telling me the clean air act did not work?  Remember the burning rivers and acid rain? We haven't had a Love Canal recently have we?  There is a very long list of very successful environmental laws.


----------



## BWK (Dec 30, 2018)

harmonica said:


> who cares?
> we can't stop any climate change


You're an idiot. Get out of the way.


----------



## Correll (Dec 30, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Johnlaw said:
> ...





Your dishonest dodge is noted. The topic is global warming. 


You dodged because you know that there has been no results from all your efforts.


----------



## depotoo (Dec 30, 2018)

I note the deflection there.





Johnlaw said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Johnlaw said:
> ...


----------



## JLW (Dec 30, 2018)

Correll said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


No, your question to me seemed to be aimed at all environmental laws, not just climate change related legislation.  The problem with enacting climate change laws is the obstructionism of the right.  No doubt that higher café standards helped as well as regs that the Obama Administration enacted and that Trump is trying to undo.


----------



## Correll (Dec 30, 2018)

depotoo said:


> I note the deflection there.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





It was pretty obvious. He knows that all the Left's sound and fury has produced nothing.


----------



## harmonica (Dec 30, 2018)

BWK said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> > who cares?
> ...


you can't stop it
YOU'RE the idiot if you think you can


----------



## Correll (Dec 30, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Johnlaw said:
> ...




Nope. The context was obvious. Your pretense of confusion is a lie. 


You lefties have had your way in Europe, and in the UN, and in many large states, and during the Obama administration, ect.


So, give us a tally of some of the results, or admit is was all bullshit.


----------



## Crepitus (Dec 30, 2018)

andaronjim said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > depotoo said:
> ...


Read, understand, then post.

They are not debating the reality of AGW, that is long since settled.  They are debating possible solutions to the problem.


----------



## harmonica (Dec 30, 2018)

Crepitus said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > Olde Europe said:
> ...


such as?
stop driving cars?


----------



## JLW (Dec 30, 2018)

Correll said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Your context was not obvious, but your post is now deflection.  The purpose of the thread is to discuss future action. Past action has been stymied by Republican obstructionism whether you choose to admit it or not.  For instance tax credits for solar energy were on the rise when the Koch brothers supported a tax on solar panels.  Give me solutions and not your typical obstructionism.


----------



## Correll (Dec 30, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Johnlaw said:
> ...




1.  The context was obvious.

2. You greenies have been addressing Global Warming now for decades. YOu have been asked for a summary of results. 

3. You cannot give any.


----------



## JLW (Dec 30, 2018)

Correll said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


I gave you examples. You are deflecting give me solutions.


----------



## Crepitus (Dec 30, 2018)

harmonica said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > andaronjim said:
> ...


I don't have all the answers, but fuel economy standards such as the ones tRump is trying to fuck up are definitely part of it.


----------



## Correll (Dec 30, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Johnlaw said:
> ...




Give me the results your solutions have accomplished so far.


----------



## harmonica (Dec 30, 2018)

Crepitus said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...


you still have Millions of cars all over the world
that's a drop in the bucket
if the climate has changed, it's too late to do anything--it's changed


----------



## JLW (Dec 30, 2018)

Correll said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



I have all ready answered your question.  The issue is how many tens of billions of dollars will it cost us to do nothing about climate change.  I am focused on the future and you the past.  You can either keep your head buried in the sand or move to action.  The consequences are upon us.  So  what are your solutions?


----------



## Olde Europe (Dec 30, 2018)

Mac1958 said:


> A comprehensive conversation requires a wide range of viewpoints, including contrarians.
> 
> You never know what might pop up.
> 
> ...



Because, what we really, really need for a comprehensive conversation is stooges lying through their teeth on behalf of Exxon's bottom line for decades, because we know exactly what will "pop up".

SMH.


----------



## Correll (Dec 30, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Johnlaw said:
> ...




Your admission that your work so far has accomplished nothing is accepted.


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 30, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> Watching Meet the Press.  They have dedicated the whole hour to climate change.  They have no deniers on the panel and as Chuck Todd correctly stated the science is long since settled.  Now it is time to discuss  solutions.
> 
> A recent poll shows even a majority of Republicans do not dispute anthropogenic climate change.
> Opinion | More Republicans Than You Think Support Action on Climate Change
> ...




America had 8 years with B. Hussein O as autocrat implementing his program to stop climate change.  The massive War on Coal Miners, the signing of the Paris Accords, stopping the Keystone Pipeline, etc., etc. etc., was all for naught.      The weather didn't change a bit.

There is no "solution", the idea is to go with the flow.


----------



## Mac1958 (Dec 30, 2018)

Olde Europe said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > A comprehensive conversation requires a wide range of viewpoints, including contrarians.  You never know what might pop up.  *We just no longer care about that, because we're no longer listening.*
> ...


See?
.


----------



## skookerasbil (Dec 30, 2018)

The show will be about a bunch of goofballs standing in front of a banner taking bows! Oy


----------



## harmonica (Dec 30, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Johnlaw said:
> ...


you can't change the climate ''quick enough''


----------



## JLW (Dec 30, 2018)

Correll said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


Your deflection noted.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Dec 30, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> Watching Meet the Press.  They have dedicated the whole hour to climate change.  They have no deniers on the panel and as Chuck Todd correctly stated the science is long since settled.  Now it is time to discuss  solutions.
> 
> A recent poll shows even a majority of Republicans do not dispute anthropogenic climate change.
> Opinion | More Republicans Than You Think Support Action on Climate Change
> ...



Chuck Todd? 

Settled science isn't falsifying data to keep the grand wealth redistribution scheme going


----------



## Olde Europe (Dec 30, 2018)

Mac1958 said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > Mac1958 said:
> ...



Yeah, I see.  The Exxon stooge shows up, saying, basically, "Yes, I am a paid-for liar, and I'll tell you exactly the same counter-factual crap I've been telling for years, but no 'debate' shall remain un-besmirched by my presence, and no scientific truth shall be spared my mendacious distortions, so hear me out!"

You, following your demented shtick, make that sordid comedy and corporate propaganda into a fact-finding mission.


----------



## Correll (Dec 30, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Johnlaw said:
> ...




No deflection. Deal with it.


----------



## JLW (Dec 30, 2018)

harmonica said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



We can action to lessen the effects of climate change. It will be difficult, I am under no illusion. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The prevention stage may be passed but if we start now we may save on the cure.


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 30, 2018)

SassyIrishLass said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> > Watching Meet the Press.  They have dedicated the whole hour to climate change.  They have no deniers on the panel and as Chuck Todd correctly stated the science is long since settled.  Now it is time to discuss  solutions.
> ...




That's exactly it, Climate Change Hysteria is just a scamola to trick the people into not only accepting but demanding socialism and the end of freedom.   

If it was proven false, it wouldn't matter as the Elite would just find another crank theory to demand the same "reforms".

The very idea that mankind can change the weather is really rather idolatrous, as only Almighty God can change the weather.  It isn't our place, and the world is so vast, it is impossible.


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 30, 2018)

Olde Europe said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Olde Europe said:
> ...




Exxon is a great company, they do a fantastic job.   I worked for them as pump man back in the 1970's, its a real quality product.


----------



## Olde Europe (Dec 30, 2018)

Olde Europe said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Olde Europe said:
> ...



Ah, hit, again, by the weapon of the intellectually helpless:

Funny x 1
Mac1958

What an idiot you've become, Mac.

The nation's problem isn't that "contrarians" are excluded.  It's that truth and falsehood / lies / distortions / propaganda were given equal weight for far too long, and the "both-sides" morons want to keep it that way.


----------



## JLW (Dec 30, 2018)

SassyIrishLass said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> > Watching Meet the Press.  They have dedicated the whole hour to climate change.  They have no deniers on the panel and as Chuck Todd correctly stated the science is long since settled.  Now it is time to discuss  solutions.
> ...



I have news for you, one way or another someone is going to pay, and pay big.  Either we take action or your kids will. The predictions of climate change are coming true. The proverbial writing is on the wall.  Miami is taking action on rising sea levels and many coastal communities now are discussing the issue. 

One can be proactive or reactive.  That is the debate with climate change in a nutshell.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Dec 30, 2018)

Polishprince said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > Johnlaw said:
> ...



You have to realize you're not dealing with the brightest bulbs on the strand when it comes to left loons. Easily duped and led


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Dec 30, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > Johnlaw said:
> ...



Ahhhhh dry up


----------



## Mac1958 (Dec 30, 2018)

Olde Europe said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > Mac1958 said:
> ...


Wow, personal insults, name-calling, partisan myopia.

Perfect, thanks.
.


----------



## JLW (Dec 30, 2018)

Polishprince said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > Mac1958 said:
> ...



You do realize that Exxon does not dispute the truth of man made climate change and that fossil fuels are to blame. Rex Tillerson when he was CEO admitted as much.


----------



## Correll (Dec 30, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> > Johnlaw said:
> ...




IF the problem is the amount of carbon we have put into the atmosphere, how is reducing the rate of adding more carbon going to do anything?


----------



## Olde Europe (Dec 30, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> We can action to lessen the effects of climate change. It will be difficult, I am under no illusion. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The prevention stage may be passed but if start now we may save on the cure.



Yep.  At a hundred miles per hour, we can no longer avoid that wall ahead.  Therefore, or so Harmonica informs us, pedal to the metal.  And braking is overrated anyway.

But hey, a "comprehensive conversation" requires we listen to these dolts.


----------



## Correll (Dec 30, 2018)

Olde Europe said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> > We can action to lessen the effects of climate change. It will be difficult, I am under no illusion. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The prevention stage may be passed but if start now we may save on the cure.
> ...




How much suffering are you prepared to inflict in pursuit of your unattainable and unverifiable goals?


----------



## Olde Europe (Dec 30, 2018)

Mac1958 said:


> Perfect, thanks.
> .



You're welcome.  Once you decide to rejoin the real world - as opposed to riding your supercilious shtick to death - you'll receive a different reaction.


----------



## Crepitus (Dec 30, 2018)

harmonica said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > harmonica said:
> ...


If you get a diagnosis of cancer are you gonna say: "If I've got cancer I've got cancer, it's too late to do anything, I've already got it."?


----------



## Correll (Dec 30, 2018)

Crepitus said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...




Sometimes that is the right response, actually.


And all lefties have offered, is IF your analysis is correct, is to reduce your level of smoking. NOt stop. SLIGHTLY REDUCE.


That is not a solution. It is not even really a good coping mechanism. It is playing with yourself.


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 30, 2018)

Crepitus said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...




Maybe.   Depends on the exact diagnosis and whether anything can be done for the disease.

With Climate Change, there is no cure for it, no proof that buying all the carbon credits in the world will affect the weather at all.


----------



## JLW (Dec 30, 2018)

Correll said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> > harmonica said:
> ...


You ask a fair question as to solutions.  The purpose of this thread was to discuss solutions and to hear all the pros and cons.

I would consider the following:

Cap and Trade
Honor the Paris Accords limits.
A graduated gas tax.  The gas tax would be used to fund green infrastructure.
Investment in green energy and technology
Extended Tax credits for hybrid, electric  and plug in cars
Extended tax credits for investments in residential and commercial projects that utilize green energy

These are proposals.  There are other potential solutions. All have pros and cons. Obviously the US can't do it all itself, but we could lead on the issue instead of  being
obstructers.


----------



## harmonica (Dec 30, 2018)

Crepitus said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...


ridiculous comparison !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Correll (Dec 30, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Johnlaw said:
> ...




ALL that does, is at most, reduce the rate of putting MORE carbon into the atmosphere. 


It does not stop making the "problem" worse.


It does not do one thing to even start fixing the "problem".


----------



## harmonica (Dec 30, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Johnlaw said:
> ...


sure--lead = fking ourselves over
tax credits for hybrid cars is smaller than a drop in the bucket


----------



## JLW (Dec 30, 2018)

Correll said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


Any green infrastructure project would include investment in carbon sequestration and related technology to reduce carbon in the atmosphere.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Dec 30, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> Watching Meet the Press.  They have dedicated the whole hour to climate change.  They have no deniers on the panel and as Chuck Todd correctly stated the science is long since settled.  Now it is time to discuss  solutions.
> 
> A recent poll shows even a majority of Republicans do not dispute anthropogenic climate change.
> Opinion | More Republicans Than You Think Support Action on Climate Change
> ...




So it's a church service for your moronic cult.


----------



## JLW (Dec 30, 2018)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> > Watching Meet the Press.  They have dedicated the whole hour to climate change.  They have no deniers on the panel and as Chuck Todd correctly stated the science is long since settled.  Now it is time to discuss  solutions.
> ...


Why now, shouldn't you be listening to your pastor's sermon instead of responding to posts on USMB?


----------



## Correll (Dec 30, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Johnlaw said:
> ...





Reducing the rate of adding more, is not reducing the carbon in the atmosphere.


Your proposed "solutions" are peanuts. What is your real agenda?


----------



## Olde Europe (Dec 30, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> You do realize that Exxon does not dispute the truth of man made climate change and that fossil fuels are to blame. Rex Tillerson when he was CEO admitted as much.



You do realize that Tillerson's admission flies into the face of decades of lying, distortion, and obfuscation by the Merchants of Doubt with substantial funding by Exxon, and in relevant part during Tillerson's rule - exactly the kinds of propagandists Mac thinks are needed in, and shall not be excluded from, debates about climate change.


----------



## progressive hunter (Dec 30, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > So you applaud bias and non diversity.  Got it.
> ...


what science is settled,,,


----------



## JLW (Dec 30, 2018)

Correll said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


Sorry, my agenda is the environment, the future of my kids and not leaving them saddled with an environmental catastrophe. Sorry, if that disappoints you.


----------



## progressive hunter (Dec 30, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Johnlaw said:
> ...




so tell us how many trees you planted last yr???


----------



## Correll (Dec 30, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Johnlaw said:
> ...




NOTHING in your posts, would prevent the "environmental catastrophe" you claim to be worried about.


It would cost untold amounts of money, cause horrible human suffering and oppression, and give massive power to government(s) and the UN.


----------



## JLW (Dec 30, 2018)

Olde Europe said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> > You do realize that Exxon does not dispute the truth of man made climate change and that fossil fuels are to blame. Rex Tillerson when he was CEO admitted as much.
> ...



Fossil fuel companies have known since the 60s that the consequence of burning these  fuels would be a warming planet.  For over a half century they have lied and destroyed this truth.  These companies unleashed the lie and now they themselves can't rein it in.


----------



## JLW (Dec 30, 2018)

progressive hunter said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



LOL my back yard is a jungle because I have refused to cut down a single tree.


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 30, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> Fossil fuel companies have known since the 50s that the consequence of burning these  fuels would be a warming planet.  For over a half century they have lied and destroyed this truth.  These companies unleashed the lie and now they themselves can't rein it in.




How would they possibly "know" that?

In the 1970's, the Climate Alarmist Faction was predicting a new ice age.


----------



## JLW (Dec 30, 2018)

Correll said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



As I wrote you can be proactive or reactive. Pay now or pay later.  Far easier and cheaper to take action now.


----------



## progressive hunter (Dec 30, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Johnlaw said:
> ...


that didnt answer my question,,,how many trees did you plant last yr??

I ask because any honest environmentalist knows that trees are the only real solution,,,,all the rest is just fascist bullsht


----------



## Correll (Dec 30, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Johnlaw said:
> ...





And you demonstrate that you cannot tell the difference between NOT cutting down a tree and PLANTING a tree.


Do you understand how much that destroys the credibility of your statements on Global Warming?


----------



## Correll (Dec 30, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Johnlaw said:
> ...




No, it isn't. The actions you propose would be very expensive and have little if any impact.


----------



## Correll (Dec 30, 2018)

progressive hunter said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...




He can't tell the difference between planting and not cutting.


----------



## Crepitus (Dec 30, 2018)

Correll said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > harmonica said:
> ...


Ok, so you're just a fatalist.  I hope for your sake you never get that diagnosis.

Those of us with common sense are gonna try to save the planet, ok?


----------



## JLW (Dec 30, 2018)

Polishprince said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> > Fossil fuel companies have known since the 50s that the consequence of burning these  fuels would be a warming planet.  For over a half century they have lied and destroyed this truth.  These companies unleashed the lie and now they themselves can't rein it in.
> ...



CO2's Role in Global Warming Has Been on the Oil Industry's Radar Since the 1960s


----------



## Crepitus (Dec 30, 2018)

Polishprince said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > harmonica said:
> ...


Amazing  the amount of people who just wanna give up.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 30, 2018)

andaronjim said:


> How can you have a real debate when the other side said "Global Warming science is settled


By debating what may and should happen next, of course. I think you could probably have figured that one out.


----------



## Crepitus (Dec 30, 2018)

harmonica said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > harmonica said:
> ...


Nope.  Sorry, try again.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 30, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> Watching Meet the Press.  They have dedicated the whole hour to climate change.  They have no deniers on the panel and as Chuck Todd correctly stated the science is long since settled.  Now it is time to discuss  solutions.
> 
> A recent poll shows even a majority of Republicans do not dispute anthropogenic climate change.
> Opinion | More Republicans Than You Think Support Action on Climate Change
> ...


Excellent. No need to invite anti vaxxers, flat earthers, or evolution deniers to the table, either.


----------



## progressive hunter (Dec 30, 2018)

Correll said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...




I didnt ask how many you didnt cut down, i asked how many you planted???


so yes I do know the dif


I just figured a person as dedicated as you would have planted thousands of trees to show you can put you money where your mouth is,,but I guess thats to much to ask

instead we get you telling everyone else what they should do

my dog cares more for the planet than you do,,,he shits outside and doesnt use man made resources for it,,

dont be such a hypocrite


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 30, 2018)

Polishprince said:


> In the 1970's, the Climate Alarmist Faction was predicting a new ice age.


Debunked, horseshit myth. This is exactly why deniers should not be invited to the table.


----------



## JLW (Dec 30, 2018)

Correll said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Johnlaw said:
> ...



You guys are really the crown fools of deflection.  I have planted trees all over my yard.  Do you really have to be led by the hand on every statement.


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 30, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> I would consider the following:
> 
> Cap and Trade
> Honor the Paris Accords limits.
> ...




The reason why you would consider these ideas, because you would consider them regardless of climate change or anything else.

The solution was drawn up first, and the problem was decided on later.

If someone came up with a Free Market solution to bad weather, you'd reject it out of hand.   The idea of the whole scam is to impose socialism.

The truth be told, America is one of the least polluted countries on the planet.   Red China, Russia, other nations are much dirtier.  They just need to do what we're doing.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 30, 2018)

progressive hunter said:


> that didnt answer my question,,,how many trees did you plant last yr??


Silly question. Climate change solutions will come at the global and government levels. It would be more relevant and smart to ask what an individual did to promote better policies.

I'm not against individual action, of course. Conservation is a good one.


----------



## Correll (Dec 30, 2018)

Crepitus said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...





NOTHING, proposed by you guys, would "save" the planet from the "problem" you claim to be worried about.


It would give the government massive power and funds to oppress US and lower our quality of life.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Dec 30, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Johnlaw said:
> ...



I was listening to the sermon of your church, and laughing at what unthinking sheep you morons are. Far more entertaining. 

A dozen years back some idiot TV preacher told his flock that unless they sent him a million dollars, that god would kill him. Haggee I think. Anyway, the scumbag was mocked and pilloried across the nation, and rightly so.

Yet that is the entire basis of your stupid fucking religion, give billions or Gaia will "take us all home". Only money to the elite can gain forgiveness for carbon sins...

Your cult is stupid and primitive, but it's designed for those without reasoning skills, those like you.


----------



## JLW (Dec 30, 2018)

Polishprince said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> > I would consider the following:
> ...


My proposals were free market solutions.  For heaven's sake cap and trade is a republican idea.


----------



## Correll (Dec 30, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...




That is not what you said before.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 30, 2018)

Correll said:


> NOTHING, proposed by you guys, would "save" the planet from the "problem" you claim to be worried about.


Well that's just complete nonsense. For instance,heavily investing in solar energy research in order to speed up the time it takes for it to be cheaper and cleaner would greatly reduce emissions for all future generations.


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 30, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > Johnlaw said:
> ...




Your solutions are more regulations from the government, Socialism  by definition.

Further, your proposal provide ZERO relief for the millions of Americans who live in small towns, exurbs, rural areas or suburbs, who are more directly effected by the price of gasoline- something that you all want to impose draconian taxes on.

The entire "Climate Change" scamola is designed to filter money from the backwaters of America to the elite cities and their progressive leaders.


----------



## Correll (Dec 30, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > NOTHING, proposed by you guys, would "save" the planet from the "problem" you claim to be worried about.
> ...




Reducing the* rate of increase* of carbon in the atmosphere will not stop or reverse global warming.


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 30, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > NOTHING, proposed by you guys, would "save" the planet from the "problem" you claim to be worried about.
> ...




No it wouldn't.       There are limited reserves of indium and other rare elements needed for solar energy, and most of those reserves are in places like Red China.      Solar is a dead end as far as supplying the majority of America's growing energy needs.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 30, 2018)

Correll said:


> Reducing the* rate of increase* of carbon in the atmosphere will not stop or reverse global warming.


Of course it could, over time, if that rate becomes negative, thereby lessening the greenhouse effect.


----------



## whitehall (Dec 30, 2018)

Why did they change the wording from "global warming"? Maybe the globe ain't warming but the climate constantly changes?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 30, 2018)

Polishprince said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


That's a silly response. For one, half the point is to improve the tech and make it more economical....so placing constraints on it based on how it is done today is to miss the point entirely. Furthermore, I noticed your little parlor tricks there. Nobody said it would need to supply the majority of our energy needs all by itself, notrhas anyone said it is the only thing we should do to create sustainable energy.

You literally hit all 3 of the most popular specious denier tactics in about 3 sentences.


----------



## progressive hunter (Dec 30, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...




but how many,,,4-5 trees are not going to save the world


and since your commitment only includes your own yard its clear youre a fraud

and I can only assume you live in a house and drive a car,,,so for you to tell us what we should do while its you thats the problem is hypocrisy at its best

come back and talk to us when you fixed your own house and the problems you cause


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 30, 2018)

whitehall said:


> Why did they change the wording from "global warming"? Maybe the globe ain't warming but the climate constantly changes?



It considered "climate change" after Labor Day, it will revert to "global warming" after Easter.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 30, 2018)

progressive hunter said:


> but how many,,,4-5 trees are not going to save the world


Which is exactly why your tired old denier tack here is absurd. Cut it out.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 30, 2018)

Polishprince said:


> It considered "climate change" after Labor Day, it will revert to "global warming" after Easter.


Haha, this is so dumb. I am quite certain you have no idea why you just sounded so dumb.


----------



## progressive hunter (Dec 30, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > Johnlaw said:
> ...




cap and trade is fascist not free market


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 30, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> Watching Meet the Press.  They have dedicated the whole hour to climate change.  They have no deniers on the panel and as Chuck Todd correctly stated the science is long since settled.  Now it is time to discuss  solutions.
> 
> A recent poll shows even a majority of Republicans do not dispute anthropogenic climate change.
> Opinion | More Republicans Than You Think Support Action on Climate Change
> ...


The only way an alarmist can win the case without any evidence is to do it in an ECHO, Echo, Echo Chamber..  The science is NOT settled.  Only a moronic fool who denies science believes that it is.. (In other words a Political Whore)


----------



## Crepitus (Dec 30, 2018)

Correll said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


That's nice kid.


----------



## Correll (Dec 30, 2018)

Crepitus said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...



Your admission that you cannot refute my point is accepted.


So, since you admit that your proposals would not work, what is your real agenda?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 30, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> The only way an alarmist can win the case without any evidence is to do it in an ECHO, Echo, Echo Chamber..


Really? Last I checked the entire global scientific community has reached a consensus...while, on the other hand, the deniers have been relegated to soothing each other anonymously on internet message boards. I.e., echo Chambers.

So, um, yeah, you pretty much got that one ass backwards.


----------



## Crepitus (Dec 30, 2018)

Correll said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


That's nice kid.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 30, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > Johnlaw said:
> ...


You want a solution to a made up fantasy problem... Priceless..


----------



## Correll (Dec 30, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > The only way an alarmist can win the case without any evidence is to do it in an ECHO, Echo, Echo Chamber..
> ...




What you mean is you have never really checked. You have been told that, and it is want you want to hear so that was the end of it as far as you are concerned.


----------



## Correll (Dec 30, 2018)

Crepitus said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...




Your sophist games are noted and dismissed.


What is your real agenda? What is this really about?


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 30, 2018)

If climate change is "settled" , why didn't B. Hussein O do anything about it when he was ruling?

Its either he had no political courage, or he realized it was bullshit and the people weren't convinced and they would tar and/or feather him and his fellow leftards.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 30, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> global scientific community has reached a consensus.


Wrong again...

Only 380 UN and related scientists agree on the political agenda called Global Warming...  They change the name now 7 times as their scam was uncovered and this last time they made it just veg enough that any change can be stated to be mans fault without proof or even one shred of physical evidence to prove it..

Still waiting for your idiots to provide observed empirical evidence and the science to back it up that is not model derived fiction.


----------



## Crepitus (Dec 30, 2018)

Correll said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


Sophist games?

I'm shooing you off.  Nothing more.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 30, 2018)

Polishprince said:


> If climate change is "settled" , why didn't B. Hussein O do anything about it when he was ruling?


He did, pay attention.


----------



## progressive hunter (Dec 30, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > The only way an alarmist can win the case without any evidence is to do it in an ECHO, Echo, Echo Chamber..
> ...


please dont peddle that lie,,,the entire global scientific community has not reached a consensus ,,,


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 30, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Still waiting for your idiots to provide observed empirical evidence and the science to back it up that is not model derived fiction.


No you are not. This would imply that you have made an effort to educate yourself on this material and that you are open to new information. Neither of these things are true, and everyone knows it, including you.


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 30, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > If climate change is "settled" , why didn't B. Hussein O do anything about it when he was ruling?
> ...



If Obama resolved the problem, why are warmists still whining about it?


----------



## Correll (Dec 30, 2018)

Crepitus said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...





If you were really done, you would just stop replying.


But you can't let my point stand, yet you can't refute it. Hence silly word games.



NOTHING, proposed by you guys, would "save" the planet from the "problem" you claim to be worried about.


It would give the government massive power and funds to oppress US and lower our quality of life.


So, your real goal must be something else.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 30, 2018)

progressive hunter said:


> the entire global scientific community has not reached a consensus ,,,


Wrong. The consensus that the planet is warming due to the actions of mankind enjoys the same overwhelming consensus as does evolution, or germ theory. Bullshit denier canard #1,765,980, grifted straight from lying denier bloggers.


----------



## Correll (Dec 30, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > If climate change is "settled" , why didn't B. Hussein O do anything about it when he was ruling?
> ...





Yet, you can't give US any results.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 30, 2018)

Polishprince said:


> If Obama resolved the problem,


Stupid charlatan parlor trick...you switched from "doing something about it" to "resolving it". You're not smart enough to fool people, stop trying.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 30, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> Watching Meet the Press.  They have dedicated the whole hour to climate change.  They have no deniers on the panel and as Chuck Todd correctly stated the science is long since settled.  Now it is time to discuss  solutions.
> 
> A recent poll shows even a majority of Republicans do not dispute anthropogenic climate change.
> Opinion | More Republicans Than You Think Support Action on Climate Change
> ...




You sad little booby.  The Climate is always changing.   The biggest causes are the sun and volcanic activity.  Human impact is negligible at most.

And as the Earth is COOLING due to minimal solar activity, I suggest we get busy building nuclear power plants asap.


----------



## Correll (Dec 30, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > the entire global scientific community has not reached a consensus ,,,
> ...




Propaganda works. So does controlling funding. Not to mention destroying people who don't toe the party line.


----------



## Correll (Dec 30, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > If Obama resolved the problem,
> ...




So, what results did he work get?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 30, 2018)

boedicca said:


> The Climate is always changing.


Wow!!!!

Have you passed this AMAZING information on to the people who discovered and taught you that? Imagine their surprise!


----------



## Crepitus (Dec 30, 2018)

Correll said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


Lol.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 30, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > The Climate is always changing.
> ...




Hey FFI, look at my thumb:






















Gee you're dumb.


----------



## progressive hunter (Dec 30, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > the entire global scientific community has not reached a consensus ,,,
> ...




well evolution has been proven wrong more times than right., and the only known germs are those that infest anothers life,,,or are those parasites/democrats

in fact evolution has been proven 100% wrong

see I know you drones are lying about CC because you ignore any real solutions in favor of controlling people 
,,,so let us know when you cast off all the modern things that make your life so good and live outside in your panties


----------



## depotoo (Dec 30, 2018)

Entire global scientific community?  You fell for it, just as they knew you and millions of others would.  

“The authors of the survey report, however, note that the overwhelming majority of scientists fall within four other models, each of which is skeptical of alarmist global warming claims.

The survey finds that 24 percent of the scientist respondents fit the “Nature Is Overwhelming” model. "In their diagnostic framing, they believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth.” Moreover, “they strongly disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal lives.”

Another group of scientists fit the “Fatalists” model. These scientists, comprising 17 percent of the respondents, “diagnose climate change as both human- and naturally caused. ‘Fatalists’ consider climate change to be a smaller public risk with little impact on their personal life. They are skeptical that the scientific debate is settled regarding the IPCC modeling.” These scientists are likely to ask, “How can anyone take action if research is biased?”

The next largest group of scientists, comprising 10 percent of respondents, fit the “Economic Responsibility” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being natural or human caused. More than any other group, they underscore that the ‘real’ cause of climate change is unknown as nature is forever changing and uncontrollable. Similar to the ‘nature is overwhelming’ adherents, they disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal life. They are also less likely to believe that the scientific debate is settled and that the IPCC modeling is accurate. In their prognostic framing, they point to the harm the Kyoto Protocol and all regulation will do to the economy.”

The final group of scientists, comprising 5 percent of the respondents, fit the “Regulation Activists” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being both human- and naturally caused, posing a moderate public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life.” Moreover, “They are also skeptical with regard to the scientific debate being settled and are the most indecisive whether IPCC modeling is accurate.”

Taken together, these four skeptical groups numerically blow away the 36 percent of scientists who believe global warming is human caused and a serious concern.

One interesting aspect of this new survey is the unmistakably alarmist bent of the survey takers. They frequently use terms such as “denier” to describe scientists who are skeptical of an asserted global warming crisis, and they refer to skeptical scientists as “speaking against climate science” rather than “speaking against asserted climate projections.” Accordingly, alarmists will have a hard time arguing the survey is biased or somehow connected to the ‘vast right-wing climate denial machine.’

Another interesting aspect of this new survey is that it reports on the beliefs of scientists themselves rather than bureaucrats who often publish alarmist statements without polling their member scientists. We now have meteorologists, geoscientists and engineers all reporting that they are skeptics of an asserted global warming crisis, yet the bureaucrats of these organizations frequently suck up to the media and suck up to government grant providers by trying to tell us the opposite of what their scientist members actually believe.
Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis


Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > The only way an alarmist can win the case without any evidence is to do it in an ECHO, Echo, Echo Chamber..
> ...


----------



## boedicca (Dec 30, 2018)

Climate Change:   cycles of ice ages and warming due to volcanic and solar activity:






The Fairy Tale Of Global Warming.. - Dennis G Hurst


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 30, 2018)

Does anyone ever wonder to themselves why a bunch of uneducated slobs would deny the determinations of the global scientific community on this topic, but not on others?

Well, wonder no more:

The right-wing climate-denial machine is churning faster than ever


----------



## whitehall (Dec 30, 2018)

Lefties never have a nice day during a republican administration. If it isn't "nuclear annihilation" it's freaking climate change. It's below zero during the day in the mid west and in the 40's and 50's on the east coast. Should we panic?


----------



## Correll (Dec 30, 2018)

Crepitus said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...






If you were really done, you would just stop replying.


But you can't let my point stand, yet you can't refute it. Hence silly word games.



NOTHING, proposed by you guys, would "save" the planet from the "problem" you claim to be worried about.


It would give the government massive power and funds to oppress US and lower our quality of life.


So, your real goal must be something else.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 30, 2018)

Number of published scientific studies over the last 30 years that conclude the current, rapid warming is not chiefly due to mankind's emissions:

0

That is overwhelming consensus. Go ahead deniers, publish some science. The fossil fuel industry would pay you well for it.


----------



## depotoo (Dec 30, 2018)




----------



## boedicca (Dec 30, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Does anyone ever wonder to themselves why a bunch of uneducated slobs would deny the determinations of the global scientific community on this topic, but not on others?
> 
> Well, wonder no more:
> 
> The right-wing climate-denial machine is churning faster than ever




Yes, it is sad to see a bunch of uneducated slobs worship the Global Warming Statist Shakedown God.  You are duped by falsified models and fake data...but that is hardly a surprise.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 30, 2018)

boedicca said:


> You are duped by falsified models and fake data...


Shameless, stupid lie that you don't even understand. Embarrassing.


----------



## Correll (Dec 30, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Number of published scientific studies over the last 30 years that conclude the current, rapid warming is not chiefly due to mankind's emissions:
> 
> 0
> 
> That is overwhelming consensus. Go ahead deniers, publish some science. The fossil fuel industry would pay you well for it.





Punishing heretics is a good way of preventing heresy. 


No one says otherwise.


Fear is a good motivator to conform.


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 30, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Number of published scientific studies over the last 30 years that conclude the current, rapid warming is not chiefly due to mankind's emissions:
> 
> 0
> 
> That is overwhelming consensus. Go ahead deniers, publish some science. The fossil fuel industry would pay you well for it.




"consensus"??? LOL  


The Global Warming/Climate Change myth has been around for more than 30 years.   And during that time, prophets like Al Gore and Ted Danson among others have made predictions.   They all turned out to be flat wrong.

If scientists keep bullshitting people, their scientific bonafides don't mean crap.


----------



## depotoo (Dec 30, 2018)

Popular Technology.net: 1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism


Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Number of published scientific studies over the last 30 years that conclude the current, rapid warming is not chiefly due to mankind's emissions:
> 
> 0
> 
> That is overwhelming consensus. Go ahead deniers, publish some science. The fossil fuel industry would pay you well for it.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 30, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > You are duped by falsified models and fake data...
> ...




You are an ignorant moron duped by Carbon-Hustling Conmen.


----------



## JLW (Dec 30, 2018)

progressive hunter said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Wow, what a ridiculous supposition.  Unless we go back a few hundred years nobody leads a perfectly green life. We need to talk solutions not your ludicrous deflections.


----------



## Correll (Dec 30, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Johnlaw said:
> ...




You greenies are the ones claiming that the world is in danger, now when called on to tell what sacrifices you have done, you get testy.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 30, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Still waiting for your idiots to provide observed empirical evidence and the science to back it up that is not model derived fiction.
> ...


Please post up the non-model derived empirical evidence..  I'll wait...(because it doesn't exist)


----------



## JLW (Dec 30, 2018)

Correll said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


What that other poster said is that if one drives a car, one cannot claim to be concerned about green issues.  That is what is ridiculous.  I do drive a hybrid, will be buying  a plugin and purposefully rented an office by my home I walk back and forth to each and every day.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 30, 2018)

depotoo said:


> Popular Technology.net: 1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism
> 
> 
> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



There you go... Punching huge holes in his "consensus" lie...


----------



## Polishprince (Dec 30, 2018)

Correll said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...




The greenies don't make sacrifices, at least the greenie leaders don't.   Guys like Al Gore live in mansions that cost hundreds of thousands to heat each year, they fly in their own private jets.    If they lived at the Y and rode the bus, it would at least show they believe their own pablum.       But what's even crazier is that the libs spend big money on beach front property on land they are predicting will be under water in short order due to climate change.

These "scientists" are using for libs for dupes, and you are the biggest suckers for those idiots that I could ever see.


----------



## Correll (Dec 30, 2018)

Crepitus said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...





If you were really done, you would just stop replying.


But you can't let my point stand, yet you can't refute it. Hence silly word games.



NOTHING, proposed by you guys, would "save" the planet from the "problem" you claim to be worried about.


It would give the government massive power and funds to oppress US and lower our quality of life.


So, your real goal must be something else.


----------



## JLW (Dec 30, 2018)

Correll said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


You need to stop with this conspiracy nonsense.  You need to acknowledge that some people just care about the state of the environment.


----------



## Correll (Dec 30, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Johnlaw said:
> ...




If the problem is half as great as you libs claim, your steps are not nearly enough. And when/if you ever succeed in making your agenda national policy, far greater hardships will be forced on you and the rest of US.


If you are not prepared for those sacrifices, you should reconsider your support of policies that will lead to them.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 30, 2018)

Polishprince said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Johnlaw said:
> ...



It is much worse than that. These people scream at the sky what they are told by their handlers. They are useful idiots.

The OP of this thread cant even tell you what the AGW premise is or how it is supposed to be proven.  The hypothesis is totally a blank slate to them and they have no basis with which to evaluate the lie they are being told to spread. Calling them Dupes does not go far enough, they are useful idiots..


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb (Dec 30, 2018)

“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos


----------



## Correll (Dec 30, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...





He admitted that that was not the case, at least with him.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 30, 2018)

Correll said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...




That's because the Greenies expect to continue living with all of the conveniences of modern society while forcing others to live with less.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 30, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...


I guess Climategate never happened and your so called 'scientists' lied, fabricated data, and systematically suppressed dissenting opinions through censorship in journals and do so to this very day..


----------



## JLW (Dec 30, 2018)

Correll said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


You are deflecting. You mention hardship.  Once again you miss the point.  There will be hardship one way or another.  Pay now or pay later. We can make changes on our own terms or have them forced upon us.  That is all I am saying.  An ostrich has never been saved from a predator by putting his head in a hole.


----------



## progressive hunter (Dec 30, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Johnlaw said:
> ...




what I've proposed is a real solution,,,what you propose is people control..

mine will result in success long before yours will


----------



## JLW (Dec 30, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



Climategate occurred in 2009, nearly 10 years ago.  Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, and found no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.


----------



## Correll (Dec 30, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Johnlaw said:
> ...




The "solutions" that you want us to pay for today, will not actually do anything. 


We will pay now, for nothing.


----------



## JLW (Dec 30, 2018)

boedicca said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Johnlaw said:
> ...


Wrong, I expect for all of us to live with the conveniences of modern society but in a sustainable way.


----------



## Correll (Dec 30, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...






Which shows that you have not really thought about this seriously.


----------



## JLW (Dec 30, 2018)

Correll said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


I disagree.  Environmental solutions do work and have worked in the past.  I welcome the debate on climate change solutions.  I want the ones that work.  That is why cap and trade is a good start.  It has a track record that worked.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 30, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Johnlaw said:
> ...


Eight internal committees of PAL REVIEWERS....  NO COLLUSION or misconduct in that now is there?  Now why would they NOT have an independent review by a balanced panel of experts?

Your and idiot and have nothing but 'appeals to authority' fallacy arguments.. You ignore the facts and the empirical evidence which shows your religion a farce..


----------



## JLW (Dec 30, 2018)

Correll said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...


What is it that I have wrote in the above post that you disagree with and why?


----------



## JLW (Dec 30, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


You are engaging in conspiracy theory thinking.  Not everything is  conspiracy.  I will first note that this thread is about solutions and not to debate the science of climate change, but it seems to me that empirical evidence is more than abundant concerning man's role in effecting the changing climate.


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb (Dec 30, 2018)

*Notice that the Climate Change Armageddon time frame is outside of today's voter's life span.*
*It’s kind of convenient for the Alarmist isn’t it.*


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 30, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Johnlaw said:
> ...


Solutions to a fantasy problem....

You truly are a top shelf useful idiot..


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 30, 2018)

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> *Notice that the Climate Change Armageddon time frame is outside of today's voter's life span.*
> *It’s kind of convenient for the Alarmist isn’t it.*


Cant have those pesky prediction phases show your a lair and a thief...


----------



## JLW (Dec 30, 2018)

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> *Notice that the Climate Change Armageddon time frame is outside of today's voter's life span.*
> *It’s kind of convenient for the Alarmist isn’t it.*


You're right.  Nearly all of us debating this issue will be dead or in a nursing home by the time the real impact of climate change hits.   Does that fact relief us from our obligation to deal with the issue for future generations?


----------



## whitehall (Dec 30, 2018)

Anybody with any common sense understands that "climate change" is a political rather than a scientific issue. A hundred years ago we barely explored the North Pole and Antarctica was a mystery and Africa was the Dark Continent. Government agencies assigned with the responsibility of predicting the weather in the dawn of the 20th century relied on swinging a thermometer on a string and studying the changes in cloud formations. Today we have temperature sensors on every corner of the globe not to mention satellite technology. The political climate rather than the geological climate created ( federally funded) politically motivated "climate theorists" who rely on modern data that they claim conflicts with 19th century data. Climate revisionists claim that the Industrial Age caused droughts in Africa when geological data indicates that the climate has been changing since glaciers gouged out the Great Lakes. The sun is a finicky bitch and we need to enjoy the balmy weather while we can but lefties never have a nice day..


----------



## boedicca (Dec 30, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...



And how do we do that by destroying our economy with nonsensical fake energy cons used to transfer wealth and income from workers to Global Statists?


----------



## boedicca (Dec 30, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Johnlaw said:
> ...




How incredibly gullible.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 30, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> > *Notice that the Climate Change Armageddon time frame is outside of today's voter's life span.*
> ...


AND once again you refuse to acknowledge that your so called 'scientists' have failed in every prediction they have ever made by empirical observations. Yet you believe even though every prediction fails? Do you have a clue what falsified means?
When your hypothesis fails to match reality it means your modeling failed to properly predict the outcome. This means your model is worthless to make policy from... Yet you insist... Are you stupid or is it something else?


----------



## JLW (Dec 30, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


You can name call, but that does not take away that our changing climate and our role in it needs to be addressed and dealt with.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 30, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> Wrong, I expect for all of us to live with the conveniences of modern society but in a sustainable way.


"Sustainable" as defined how and by whom?


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Dec 30, 2018)

The OP just admitted his bias and ignorance and approved Marxist propaganda.
What a moronic sheep.


----------



## JLW (Dec 30, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> > TroglocratsRdumb said:
> ...


No, I think the predictions are coming to fruition.  Time frames may have been off, but the effects are becoming clearer.  Stronger storms. Rising seas. Acidification of the ocean. Migration of species, Disappearing glaciers. More extreme weather.  Like the outer bands of a hurricane, these are the warning signs.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 30, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Do you have a clue what falsified means?


None of the true believers either know or care what it means...Doesn't matter what happens, *every* notable climate/weather event is because of something to be blamed upon modern industrial living.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 30, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> No, I think the predictions are coming to fruition.  Time frames may have been off, but the effects are becoming clearer.  Stronger storms. Rising seas. Acidification of the ocean. Migration of species, Disappearing glaciers. More extreme weather.  Like the outer bands of a hurricane, these are the warning signs.


Witness the ever-moving goalposts of the doomsayers...Everything will eventually end up sucking ass, just give it more time.


----------



## JLW (Dec 30, 2018)

Oddball said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> > Wrong, I expect for all of us to live with the conveniences of modern society but in a sustainable way.
> ...


When I was kid, my very conservative parents inculcated in me never to waste.  But whoa, I guess that is now a Marxist concept.  You can't make this stuff  up! (Not you but another poster indicated that)


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 30, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Johnlaw said:
> ...


Time frames Off?   MY ASS THEY ARE...  the models FAILED..




"So our predictions were wrong. But its going to happen, we just know it is"

Moron's


----------



## Oddball (Dec 30, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Johnlaw said:
> ...


That's not an answer to the question....That's not even a good dodge.

Now, who gets to determine what is "sustainable", and by what fixed set of measurements and/or principle(s) define it?


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb (Dec 30, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> > *Notice that the Climate Change Armageddon time frame is outside of today's voter's life span.*
> ...



*It means that the Left wants to make draconian economic decisions without any real proof.
In Science there are three levels of proof.
1) Law
2) Theorem
3) Hypothesis
Anthropogenic global warming is just a weak Hypothesis.
It’s foolish to make huge global economic decisions based on a weak Hypothesis*.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 30, 2018)

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> *It means that the Left wants to make draconian economic decisions without any real proof.
> In Science there are three levels of proof.
> 1) Law
> 2) Theorem
> ...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 30, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Johnlaw said:
> ...


WOW...

Your called out on your Marxist belief, terms, and now you want to cry, take your ball, and go home....  Typical left wing idiot...


----------



## JLW (Dec 30, 2018)

Oddball said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



You do ask a good questions as what is "sustainable". My definition is the management of resources  to retain balance between their use and replenishment.   I think any matrix or measurement is hard to define as it would change from resource to resource.  We know that when certain groups of whales were endangered we enacted bans and areas for whaling to preserve these whales.  Who decides?  We do ultimately.


----------



## JLW (Dec 30, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...


Where do you come up with this stuff.  Do you even know what Maxism is?  I always know I have won an argument when name calling comes into play.


----------



## Elton (Dec 30, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> Watching Meet the Press.  They have dedicated the whole hour to climate change.  They have no deniers on the panel and as Chuck Todd correctly stated the science is long since settled.  Now it is time to discuss  solutions.
> 
> A recent poll shows even a majority of Republicans do not dispute anthropogenic climate change.
> Opinion | More Republicans Than You Think Support Action on Climate Change
> ...










That's funny.  If the "science were settled" they shouldn't have any problem arguing facts with a denier.  The fact that they aren't brave enough to do so tells me the science is far from settled.  What you have just described, and endorsed, is propaganda pure and simple.  I thought you were supposed to be able to think critically.  People who can think critically aren't afraid of someone with an alternate position.


----------



## JLW (Dec 30, 2018)

Elton said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> > Watching Meet the Press.  They have dedicated the whole hour to climate change.  They have no deniers on the panel and as Chuck Todd correctly stated the science is long since settled.  Now it is time to discuss  solutions.
> ...


There are hundreds of threads debating the science.  Debating the science is no more than noise now.  Time to get to work on finding and debating solutions.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 30, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Johnlaw said:
> ...


LOL

Your a Marxist!  You are exposed. The term is bantered by the UN Marxists as "Sustainable Development".  Now you want to run from it... Priceless...


----------



## Oddball (Dec 30, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> You do ask a good questions as what is "sustainable". My definition is the management of resources  to retain balance between their use and replenishment.   I think any matrix r measurement is hard to define as it would change from resource to resource.  We know that when certain groups of whales were endangered we enacted bans and areas for whaling to preserve these whales.  Who decides?  We do ultimately.


IOW, you have no real and fixed definition, because there isn't one and cannot ever be one...But, as a student of semantics and linguistics, I already knew that.

And just like the good little statist that you are, you want to build immense bureaucracies and empower innumerable bureaucrats to enforce the undefinable.....All to be paid for by the people they'll lord over.

If that's not Marxist, nothing is.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 30, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> Elton said:
> 
> 
> > Johnlaw said:
> ...



What do you call a person who is wanting to force changes onto the public because of a made up fantasy problem?


----------



## JLW (Dec 30, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


Obviously you do not what Marxism is.


----------



## progressive hunter (Dec 30, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> Elton said:
> 
> 
> > Johnlaw said:
> ...


john I gave you all the solutions we need,
you not just ignore them but advance what you say is a problem by not doing them


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 30, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Johnlaw said:
> ...


Keep running....  You haven't lost that name yet...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 30, 2018)

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> *Notice that the Climate Change Armageddon time frame is outside of today's voter's life span.
> It’s kind of convenient for the Alarmist isn’t it.*


Actually, that's very inconvenient for those who care about climate, and convenient for idiot deniers.


----------



## Crepitus (Dec 30, 2018)

Correll said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


Lol again.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 30, 2018)

Oddball said:


> *every* notable climate/weather event is because of something to be blamed upon modern industrial living.


Goofy deniers have to invent these little dollies to knock over...since they know less than nothing about any of this.... Uneducated slobs creating low hanging fruit for themselves...


----------



## Crepitus (Dec 30, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...


Awwww come on, he's funny.


----------



## Crepitus (Dec 30, 2018)

Correll said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


See?  He's hilarious!


----------



## Oddball (Dec 30, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > *every* notable climate/weather event is because of something to be blamed upon modern industrial living.
> ...


I'm a lot more educated on the topic that you  might have thought, Gomer.


----------



## Crepitus (Dec 30, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


"Your and idiot".

I know it's just a typo but you gotta be real careful when calling somebody else stupid or you end up looking like the dumb one.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 30, 2018)

Oddball said:


> I'm a lot more educated on the topic that you might have thought, Gomer.


No you aren't. You know less than nothing about any of it.


----------



## old_guy (Dec 30, 2018)

I always find any thread/subject matter/challenge humorous in a sad way when the initial attempt is to block anyone with an opposing opinion, whether it be climate change (which is a natural phenomenon and not the man-made disaster fakes like Al Gore make millions promoting) or the Mueller lying fiasco costing taxpayers millions of dollars even while there is a shutdown.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 30, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a lot more educated on the topic that you might have thought, Gomer.
> ...


I know enough to know the real fools when I see them....Like you, Mr. Pyle.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 30, 2018)

old_guy said:


> I always find any thread/subject matter/challenge humorous in a sad way when the initial attempt is to block anyone with an opposing opinion, whether it be climate change (which is a natural phenomenon and not the man-made disaster fakes like Al Gore make millions promoting) or the Mueller lying fiasco costing taxpayers millions of dollars even while there is a shutdown.


Well cry us a river. Like I said, we also won't be inviting the flat earthers to the table, or the evolution deniers, or the idiot anti vaxxers.


----------



## JLW (Dec 30, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


You know your ridiculous naming calling of everyone that disagrees with you a  Marxist, makes you the Groucho Marx of this forum and colors all that you argue for.  I can't even take you seriously if you resort to this kind of infantile discussion.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 30, 2018)

Oddball said:


> I know enough to know the real fools when I see them....Like you, Mr. Pyle.


Yeah, this is pretty much always where you deniers end up....whiny little bitch tantrums on anonymous message boards ...

Why not publish some denier science? You know, since there isn't any.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 30, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > I know enough to know the real fools when I see them....Like you, Mr. Pyle.
> ...


All I need to know to tell me that someone I'm dealing with doesn't know jack shit, is when they toss around the old chestnuts of "sustainability" and "denier"....Why not throw in "denialist" and make it an ignoramus trifecta, Private Pyle?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 30, 2018)

Crepitus said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Johnlaw said:
> ...


But I do it using facts that you can not rebut... Makes those who reply look even more stupid... Don't you think?


----------



## Crepitus (Dec 30, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


Lol, be serious.  You're a climate denying, tRump supporting, conservitard.  You wouldn't recognize a fact if it crawled up yer butt.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 30, 2018)

Crepitus said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...


LOL...

Amazing... Not one empirical fact or observation to prove your assertions... Heck there isn't even a relevant topic point...  Just a bunch of name calling... 

I love it when left-tards admit they are defeated....


----------



## Oddball (Dec 30, 2018)

Crepitus said:


> Lol, be serious.  You're a climate denying, tRump supporting, conservitard.  You wouldn't recognize a fact if it crawled up yer butt.


Ad hominem recriminations: another useful signal to recognize that the individual in question has NFI what he's blabbering about.


----------



## Crepitus (Dec 30, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


Lmao!  You've presented no facts.


----------



## Crepitus (Dec 30, 2018)

Oddball said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > Lol, be serious.  You're a climate denying, tRump supporting, conservitard.  You wouldn't recognize a fact if it crawled up yer butt.
> ...


Lol, I've realized the futility of arguing with a climate deniers faith.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 30, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Johnlaw said:
> ...




Stronger storms - like this?

_The end of 2018 could mark a meteorological novelty: This year could be the first in the modern record in which not a single violent tornado — those ranked EF4 or EF5 on the Enhanced Fujita scale — touched down in the United States._
_
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/no-violent-tornadoes-
2018_us_5c2447efe4b08aaf7a8d8e28
_
What a tool.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 30, 2018)

Crepitus said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...


And I've learned to recognize lack of self-awareness and projection when I see them.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 30, 2018)

Oddball said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...


Stop your crybabying. Denier is the correct word for you. Skeptic is not.


----------



## Crepitus (Dec 30, 2018)

Oddball said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...


That's not surprising.  I'm sure you look in a mirror daily.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 30, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Stop your crybabying. Denier is the correct word for you. Skeptic is not.


If that's all you got, then you got nothing, Private Pyle.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 30, 2018)

boedicca said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


See, might as well broadcast to the world that you don't understand any of this. You just embarrassed yourself.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 30, 2018)

Crepitus said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...


Wow....I'm in a "debate" with Pee-wee Herman!..


----------



## depotoo (Dec 30, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana and Crepitus are classics!


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 30, 2018)

Crepitus said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...





Crepitus said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...



Arguing with an idiot... No end to the useless posts from them.. Again, please post even one fact you say proves AGW and the need to give up my freedoms..


----------



## progressive hunter (Dec 30, 2018)

Crepitus said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...




isnt that the point creep,,,we've been given no facts


----------



## boedicca (Dec 30, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Johnlaw said:
> ...




All I'm broadcasting is how nonsensical your Global Warming Religion is.


----------



## Crepitus (Dec 30, 2018)

Oddball said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...


Well I'll just leave you to it then, then I'm sure Peewee has you well in hand.

You kids play nice!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 30, 2018)

Oddball said:


> If that's all you got, then you got nothing,


Actually, I have all of the published science on my side. You have nothing but regurgitated blogs from lying deniers. Enjoy, cry baby.


----------



## Crepitus (Dec 30, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


See what I mean?


----------



## Nosmo King (Dec 30, 2018)

skookerasbil said:


> Nobody cares about climate change Chuck......not even debatable.


Speak for yourself


----------



## Correll (Dec 30, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Johnlaw said:
> ...




The scale of the alleged problem that you libs have claimed, is such that any program that would have a serious impact on the factors you want to address, ie carbon admissions, would lead to extreme hardships to the vast majority of the First World AND end any chance of the developing nations achieving First World status.


That you think you can have your cake and eat it too, shows that you have not thought seriously about the implications of the policies you push.


----------



## Crepitus (Dec 30, 2018)

progressive hunter said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


Lol, you've refused to acknowledge the facts you've been given over and over.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 30, 2018)

Oddball said:


> I'm in a "debate"


Please... Remove your own dick from your mouth.... you are no more "in a debate"than  any flat earther...


----------



## boedicca (Dec 30, 2018)

Crepitus said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...




Get back to us when you actually provide some facts.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 30, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > I'm in a "debate"
> ...


Well, Well...

Another surrender from another alarmist....

All you have is name calling....


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 30, 2018)

progressive hunter said:


> isnt that the point creep,,,we've been given no facts


Then go educate yourself


----------



## Oddball (Dec 30, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > I'm in a "debate"
> ...


Still no argument or evidence, huh?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 30, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> All you have is name calling....


*And all of the published science


----------



## Oddball (Dec 30, 2018)

Crepitus said:


> ]
> Lol, you've refused to acknowledge the facts you've been given over and over.


Which "facts"?


----------



## LoneLaugher (Dec 30, 2018)

Mac1958 said:


> A comprehensive conversation requires a wide range of viewpoints, including contrarians.
> 
> You never know what might pop up.
> 
> ...



And that is exactly what we are calling for. A comprehensive conversation regarding the best ways to combat climate change. I’m wide open to listening to any and all ideas related to combating the effects of climate change. Let’s have em. 

The conversation regarding the existence of climate change has been had. The facts and evidence are not in dispute. Those who want to keep having that conversation so that a pretense of civility can be maintained are being disingenuous. That’s you.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 30, 2018)

Oddball said:


> Still no argument or evidence, huh?


Right...no argument and evidence....just a magical, overwhelming scientific consensus, based on nothing but the urge to fool trailer park creatures like you...


----------



## Oddball (Dec 30, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > All you have is name calling....
> ...


There's a LOT of published science debunking the alarmists.....I guess that doesn't count in the temple of St. Michael Mann of the Holy Tree Rings, huh?


----------



## Oddball (Dec 30, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Still no argument or evidence, huh?
> ...


"Consensus" isn't science, Pyle.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 30, 2018)

LoneLaugher said:


> And that is exactly what we are calling for. A comprehensive conversation regarding the best ways to combat climate change. I’m wide open to listening to any and all ideas related to combating the effects of climate change. Let’s have em.
> 
> The conversation regarding the existence of climate change has been had. The facts and evidence are not in dispute. Those who want to keep having that conversation so that a pretense of civility can be maintained are being disingenuous. That’s you.


First you have to accept the absurd: that man can control the weather.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 30, 2018)

Oddball said:


> There's a LOT of published science debunking the alarmists...


There is zero published science debunking the scientific consensus. That's why you are trying to change the subject...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 30, 2018)

Oddball said:


> First you have to accept the absurd: that man can control the weather.


Of course, this is how idiots and charlatans talk. The issue is not whether or not we can control the weather, but whether or not we can affect it.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 30, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > There's a LOT of published science debunking the alarmists...
> ...


Speaking of denial!...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 30, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> Watching Meet the Press.  They have dedicated the whole hour to climate change.  They have no deniers on the panel and as Chuck Todd correctly stated the science is long since settled.  Now it is time to discuss  solutions.
> 
> A recent poll shows even a majority of Republicans do not dispute anthropogenic climate change.
> Opinion | More Republicans Than You Think Support Action on Climate Change
> ...


China is the leading culprit, what are you doing about the China Problem?


----------



## Natural Citizen (Dec 30, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> Now it is time to discuss  solutions.



Given that the US federal government is the worst polluter on the planet the solution is simple.

Less government.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 30, 2018)

depotoo said:


> So you applaud bias and non diversity.  Got it.


Climate "science" is based upon Fascism and silencing any opposition


----------



## Correll (Dec 30, 2018)

Crepitus said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...






If you were really done, you would just stop replying.


But you can't let my point stand, yet you can't refute it. Hence silly word games.



NOTHING, proposed by you guys, would "save" the planet from the "problem" you claim to be worried about.


It would give the government massive power and funds to oppress US and lower our quality of life.


So, your real goal must be something else.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 30, 2018)

Olde Europe said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > So you applaud bias and non diversity.  Got it.
> ...


What are you doing about China?


----------



## Correll (Dec 30, 2018)

Crepitus said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Johnlaw said:
> ...





If you were really done, you would just stop replying.


But you can't let my point stand, yet you can't refute it. Hence silly word games.



NOTHING, proposed by you guys, would "save" the planet from the "problem" you claim to be worried about.


It would give the government massive power and funds to oppress US and lower our quality of life.


So, your real goal must be something else.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 30, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > First you have to accept the absurd: that man can control the weather.
> ...




That's the same con that Witch Doctors have used to manipulate people throughout history.   Thunder God Angry!  He must be APPEASED!  Give me all of your money!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 30, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > Johnlaw said:
> ...



Q. How much must we lower CO2 in order to end climate change?

A. $78 Trillion


----------



## Rustic (Dec 30, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> Watching Meet the Press.  They have dedicated the whole hour to climate change.  They have no deniers on the panel and as Chuck Todd correctly stated the science is long since settled.  Now it is time to discuss  solutions.
> 
> A recent poll shows even a majority of Republicans do not dispute anthropogenic climate change.
> Opinion | More Republicans Than You Think Support Action on Climate Change
> ...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 30, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Johnlaw said:
> ...


You must convince China to lower their carbon emissions


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 30, 2018)

LoneLaugher said:


> And that is exactly what we are calling for. A comprehensive conversation regarding the best ways to combat climate change.


First and foremost you need to show what man is responsible for, before you can even engage in how it can be altered. You idiots haven't even done the first step. all you have done is scream climate change and consensus before any science has been done.


----------



## Mac1958 (Dec 30, 2018)

LoneLaugher said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > A comprehensive conversation requires a wide range of viewpoints, including contrarians.
> ...


Okay, thanks!
.


----------



## ph3iron (Dec 30, 2018)

It


Johnlaw said:


> Watching Meet the Press.  They have dedicated the whole hour to climate change.  They have no deniers on the panel and as Chuck Todd correctly stated the science is long since settled.  Now it is time to discuss  solutions.
> 
> A recent poll shows even a majority of Republicans do not dispute anthropogenic climate change.
> Opinion | More Republicans Than You Think Support Action on Climate Change
> ...



Its weird, like evolution.
95 % of people believe yet they have one guy on the other side implying both.


----------



## Slyhunter (Dec 30, 2018)

Wasn't all the snow and ice supposed to be melted by now in Antarctica? Should be grass there now. Where is the proof previous claims made years ago are true.


----------



## ph3iron (Dec 30, 2018)

Billy_Bob said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > And that is exactly what we are calling for. A comprehensive conversation regarding the best ways to combat climate change.
> ...


Gawd, read the 90 scientific socities  including NASA


----------



## ph3iron (Dec 30, 2018)

Slyhunter said:


> Wasn't all the snow and ice supposed to be melted by now in Antarctica? Should be grass there now. Where is the proof previous claims made years ago are true.


Garbage, read the science


----------



## ph3iron (Dec 30, 2018)

Slyhunter said:


> Wasn't all the snow and ice supposed to be melted by now in Antarctica? Should be grass there now. Where is the proof previous claims made years ago are true.


Antarctica is one part of the globe darlin.
Get an atlas


----------



## Slyhunter (Dec 30, 2018)

ph3iron said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> > Wasn't all the snow and ice supposed to be melted by now in Antarctica? Should be grass there now. Where is the proof previous claims made years ago are true.
> ...


Greenland Green yet? Miami under water?
Come on one of your predictions had to of come true by now huh.


----------



## ph3iron (Dec 30, 2018)

andaronjim said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > depotoo said:
> ...


How do you discuss with anyone who uses 2 nd grade liberaltards. No college, no Latin, no idea on the def of liberal


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 30, 2018)

ph3iron said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...


I am a Climate Scientist..  I read their garbage every day and have to deal with that crap.  Appeals to authority do not impress me and are a sign of how weak your argument is.


----------



## Mac1958 (Dec 30, 2018)

Only people who are in complete agreement should communicate on the important issues. We must shut down and shut out all contrarian thought .

That's where we are, gang. We've gotten that fucked up.
.


----------



## ph3iron (Dec 30, 2018)

Slyhunter said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> > Slyhunter said:
> ...


Read the NASA Site
After all, what do they know v's a zero college white rube?


----------



## boedicca (Dec 30, 2018)

Mac1958 said:


> Only people who are in complete agreement should communicate with each on the important issues. We must shut down and shut out all contrarian thought .
> 
> That's where we are, gang. We've gotten that fucked up.
> .




I'll start taking the Warmists seriously when then get rid of their cars, computers, heaters, air conditioning and only grow their own local food to eat.


----------



## depotoo (Dec 30, 2018)

And they depend on funding from none other...
Without these “life horrors” they could lose much of it.





ph3iron said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> > ph3iron said:
> ...


----------



## Kilroy2 (Dec 30, 2018)

Trump admin release the most current  report (US National Climate Change Assessment which was compiled by about 300 scientists and 13 federal agencies. It found that wildfires, storms and heatwaves are already taking a major toll on climate change and warns of the disruption in many areas of life in the future.

Trump administration response is that this report is based on extreme scenarios

yet it took all scenarios into account

Denial is a way of life for some

They will ignore their own finding if it goes agains their core beliefs

Solution - get rid of ET and find someone who can read a report

Political change is need as ET admin rolls back climate policies

ET is not worried about it because he will be long dead and his children will be the ones who have to deal with it

Science of the whole VS Me Me Me


----------



## Oddball (Dec 30, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > So you applaud bias and non diversity.  Got it.
> ...


I've peer reviewed this post and find it 100% accurate!....Consensus achieved!.....Science settled!

Dilly-dilly!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 30, 2018)

boedicca said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Only people who are in complete agreement should communicate with each on the important issues. We must shut down and shut out all contrarian thought .
> ...



Or when they take their protests to the Chinese Embassy


----------



## Crepitus (Dec 30, 2018)

boedicca said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


Get back to me when you have stopped mindlessly denying and are ready to see some.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Dec 30, 2018)

Mac1958 said:


> Only people who are in complete agreement should communicate on the important issues. We must shut down and shut out all contrarian thought .
> 
> That's where we are, gang. We've gotten that fucked up.
> .



Again. There is no viable contrarian thought on the existence of human caused climate change and it’s threat to our national security. It is fact. 

If you don’t agree with that assessment, you are not invited to the debate regarding how to deal with the threat. 

What’s fucked up is that intelligent people like you think it’s important to placate those who will not accept facts....so we can pretend to be open minded.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 30, 2018)

Oddball said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > depotoo said:
> ...




I'm in!  I peer review and give it Two Thumbs Up Fo Shizzle!

w00t! w00t!

I'll have a beer now.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 30, 2018)

Crepitus said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...




^^^ Diagnosis:  Lame Deflection Due To Lack of Facts ^^^


----------



## Crepitus (Dec 30, 2018)

boedicca said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...


Sorry doc, you need a second opinion.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 30, 2018)

LoneLaugher said:


> *Again. There is no viable contrarian thought on the existence of human caused climate change and it’s threat to our national security. It is fact. *
> 
> If you don’t agree with that assessment, you are not invited to the debate regarding how to deal with the threat.
> 
> What’s fucked up is that intelligent people like you think it’s important to placate those who will not accept facts....so we can pretend to be open minded.


100% lie.

You cannot have an intelligent conversation whose baseline premise is a total lie.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 30, 2018)

Crepitus said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Crepitus said:
> ...



Sorry (not really) to disappoint, but you are the one sorely in need of an actual opinion.  Instead, you spew nonsensical prog religious dogma.


----------



## progressive hunter (Dec 30, 2018)

I think what we have here is a bunch of climate nazis determined to lie their way into our hearts

god bless them for trying,,,


----------



## Mac1958 (Dec 30, 2018)

Contrarian thought, scary!

Kill it, kill it!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 30, 2018)

This MTP was what the entire nation was to  become under Satanic Hillary. 

Opposition silenced


----------



## progressive hunter (Dec 30, 2018)

*Lies in the Textbooks*


----------



## Oddball (Dec 30, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> This MTP was what the entire nation was to  become under Satanic Hillary.
> 
> Opposition silenced


MTP has been that since Russert croaked....And it wasn't any great shakes before that.


----------



## JLW (Dec 30, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> > Watching Meet the Press.  They have dedicated the whole hour to climate change.  They have no deniers on the panel and as Chuck Todd correctly stated the science is long since settled.  Now it is time to discuss  solutions.
> ...


You are right.  That is why I wrote, in another post, I am under no illusion how difficult this problem will be to solve.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 30, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Johnlaw said:
> ...


"Solving the problem" begins with the most preposterous of presumptions: that man can control the weather.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 30, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Johnlaw said:
> ...



I give you credit for that.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Dec 30, 2018)

Oddball said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > *Again. There is no viable contrarian thought on the existence of human caused climate change and it’s threat to our national security. It is fact. *
> ...



Sorry. You’re not invited. Peace.


----------



## progressive hunter (Dec 30, 2018)

how can you have a rational debate with people that think humans evolved  from a rock???


----------



## LoneLaugher (Dec 30, 2018)

Mac1958 said:


> Contrarian thought, scary!
> 
> Kill it, kill it!



Why would you want to do that? 

Contrarian thought is very important. When there is question regarding the facts of a matter. 

Human caused climate change is a severe national security threat. Established fact. No value in a contrarian POV on that point. 

Move on the the debate at hand. What do we do about it? 

If your answer is “nothing”, you have a valid contrarian POV, however flawed.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 30, 2018)

LoneLaugher said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...


There you have it....Live your lies or have no place in the conversation.

Good job, Karl.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Dec 30, 2018)

Oddball said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



If you cannot accept the fact that human caused climate change is a severe national security threat, you are of no use to anyone as we try to come up with workable solutions. So you have no place in the conversation. Ciao!


----------



## Muhammed (Dec 30, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> Watching Meet the Press.  They have dedicated the whole hour to climate change.  They have no deniers on the panel and as Chuck Todd correctly stated the science is long since settled.  Now it is time to discuss  solutions.
> 
> A recent poll shows even a majority of Republicans do not dispute anthropogenic climate change.
> Opinion | More Republicans Than You Think Support Action on Climate Change
> ...


Drink up that koolaid, dupe.


----------



## Dana7360 (Dec 30, 2018)

Mac1958 said:


> A comprehensive conversation requires a wide range of viewpoints, including contrarians.
> 
> You never know what might pop up.
> 
> ...






People no longer care about that because nothing intelligent, honest or logical ever comes from climate change deniers.

All they do is hamper any progress that's possible. 

They've been invited to the table for decades and all they do is everything they can to prevent any positive steps from being taken to at least slow it down or even take steps to change infrastructure to with stand the different climate extremes we are now having and will have in the future. 

Their inaction and actions to stop any action taken to reverse or combat the problem kills people. Allows for unnecessary destruction of property and infrastructure and the loss of billions of dollars. 

If they had something positive and constructive to contribute they would still be welcome.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 30, 2018)

LoneLaugher said:


> If you cannot accept the fact that human caused climate change is a severe national security threat, you are of no use to anyone as we try to come up with workable solutions. So you have no place in the conversation. Ciao!


"We".....LMAO!

Prove your "solutions" are workable or even possible.


----------



## progressive hunter (Dec 30, 2018)

LoneLaugher said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...




since I've given you morons the solution several times it makes it clear your objective is other than to solve the problem


----------



## Oddball (Dec 30, 2018)

Dana7360 said:


> People no longer care about that because nothing intelligent, honest or logical ever comes from climate change deniers.
> 
> All they do is hamper any progress that's possible.
> 
> ...


I'm right, you're wrong...So wrong that you actually want to kill people.

This is the side that claims "science".


----------



## Mac1958 (Dec 30, 2018)

Dana7360 said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > A comprehensive conversation requires a wide range of viewpoints, including contrarians.
> ...


There's always an excuse to shut someone down. I'm not a fan of that. 
.


----------



## Olde Europe (Dec 30, 2018)

Mac1958 said:


> Only people who are in complete agreement should communicate on the important issues. We must shut down and shut out all contrarian thought .
> 
> That's where we are, gang. We've gotten that fucked up.
> .



Oh, simplicity.  As if there weren't significant enough differences between climate scientists, or between folks suggesting how to counter and prepare for what's coming, even while they've convinced themselves about the reality of AGW based on near-universal scientific consensus.  "Complete agreement", my arse.  There hasn't been so much bloviating nonsense and ignorance crammed into that short an expression since... well, since the last time you rode your demented shtick.

The time for the denialingdongs is over, and they can join the flat-earthers and similar dinosaurs on their way to oblivion.  There is no more "debate" about the validity of the fundamental findings of climate science than there is about the shape of the earth's surface, even if the former is light years above your pay grade.  You can go sell your ignorance and your mendacity some place else.

That's where we are, "gang".  Grow up, face the facts, or step aside.


----------



## Dana7360 (Dec 30, 2018)

Mac1958 said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > Olde Europe said:
> ...





We've already heard what they have to say. We've heard it for years. There's nothing new.

We don't need to keep listening to the same lies and garbage over and over again. It's a waste of time and frankly insulting to intelligent people. We aren't as stupid as they think that we would actually believe their lame lies and distortions.

When you want to find solutions to a problem you don't include those who work 100% to stop you from finding those solutions and implementing them.

They don't have any solutions. Their solution is the lie that climate change is fake and we don't need to do anything about it. We've heard it all for years.

So since they have no solutions, why include them in a debate with a subject of finding solutions?


----------



## Oddball (Dec 30, 2018)

Olde Europe said:


> Oh, simplicity.  As if there weren't significant enough differences between climate scientists, or between folks suggesting how to counter and prepare for what's coming, even while they've convinced themselves about the reality of AGW based on near-universal *scientific consensus*.  "Complete agreement", my arse.  There hasn't been so much bloviating nonsense and ignorance crammed into that short an expression since... well, since the last time you rode your demented shtick.


Two words that are mutually exclusive....Science isn't up for a vote....Prove your hypothesis or STFU.



Olde Europe said:


> The time for the denialingdongs is over, and they can join the flat-earthers and similar dinosaurs on their way to oblivion.  There is no more "debate" about the validity of the fundamental findings of climate science than there is about the shape of the earth's surface, even if the former is light years above your pay grade.  You can go sell your ignorance and your mendacity some place else.
> 
> 
> That's where we are, "gang".  Grow up, face the facts, or step aside.


Then descend into the ad hominems, recriminations, and self-righteous arrogance....Some "science".


----------



## Correll (Dec 30, 2018)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...




If they were serious, that would be their primary concern.


----------



## Mac1958 (Dec 30, 2018)

Dana7360 said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Olde Europe said:
> ...


There it is again.
.


----------



## progressive hunter (Dec 30, 2018)

Dana7360 said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Olde Europe said:
> ...




since I've given you morons the solution several times it makes it clear your objective is other than to solve the problem


----------



## Oddball (Dec 30, 2018)

Dana7360 said:


> We've already heard what they have to say. We've heard it for years. There's nothing new.
> 
> We don't need to keep listening to the same lies and garbage over and over again. It's a waste of time and frankly insulting to intelligent people. We aren't as stupid as they think that we would actually believe their lame lies and distortions.
> 
> ...


And all we've heard from the warmers are models that have *never ever* been predictive, moving of the goalposts, excuse making, and ultimately the marginalization of anyone who even questions your assumptions, let alone points out that y'all have NFI what you're blabbering about.

Here's a solution: prove your "science", positively quantify it, repeat it for all to see, show your static control model, and disprove *all* other possible counter-explanations.

Until you do so -and none of the warmers has  done so- all you have is a popcorn fart.


----------



## Muhammed (Dec 30, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > Johnlaw said:
> ...


According to the laws of physics, it is impossible for increased anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere to cause any significant global warming. 

The only climate change we need to be better prepared for is global cooling. 

During periods when it is warmer, civilization thrives. The inevitable global cooling in the future will decimate the world's granary crops.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 30, 2018)

LoneLaugher said:


> If you cannot accept the fact that human caused climate change is a severe national security threat, you are of no use to anyone as we try to come up with workable solutions. So you have no place in the conversation. Ciao!


I don't accept lies as baseline assumptions, while you do.

You, sir, are a liar.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 30, 2018)




----------



## Dana7360 (Dec 30, 2018)

progressive hunter said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Johnlaw said:
> ...





Before an accident that left me with stenosis, sclerosis, degenerative disk disease in my spine with nerve damage in my hands and arms, I planted a lot of trees.

There are native sequoia redwood trees growing in parts of my state because I planted them. We used to have giant sequoia redwood trees here in my state that were larger than the ones in California but they were cut down at the beginning of the 20th century by stupid humans. 

I can't tell you how many I planted because the number is so large I lost track. 

I also planted Douglas fir trees and Yew trees. 

These days, since I can no longer do the actual planting myself, I donate money to buy trees for other people to plant. I also go out to the forest to take photos for legal cases to save trees. So far, all the cases I've supplied photos for, were settled in our favor. Which resulted in millions of trees and thousands of acres from being clear cut and destroyed. 

I go out to document the very real results of global warming or climate change. The photo below is one of them. That is a photo of what is now left of the Nisqually River. It's source is the glacier of Mt. Rainier on it's south side. For most of my life it was a very deep and raging river. All of the area of rocks that aren't trees in that photo is supposed to be water. Very deep raging fast river, now reduced to a trickle I can literally step over. I shot that photo using a curved 14 to 28mm lens because the area is so big my normal wide angle lens can't get the whole thing. I can post you photo after photo documenting the clear cuts. Before and after photos of ice caves that existed for thousands of years now gone because they melted from climate change. I can post photo after photo of lakes, streams and rivers with levels either too low to sustain life or totally dry. Because of global climate change.



 

Planting trees isn't the only thing I've done for our environment. I've worked to save our environment and trees since my early 20s. 


How many trees have you planted?


----------



## progressive hunter (Dec 30, 2018)

Dana7360 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


I own and  take care of at least 2000 trees in an urban area
 and plan to plant at least 200-300 more this yr

might not be much but I'm not the one complaining while doing nothing myself,,

and the real solution has nothing to do with government, only the people can fix problems they caused


----------



## Correll (Dec 30, 2018)

Dana7360 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...





Johnlaw was asked this question and cited the fact that he had not CUT DOWN trees.


His lack of appreciation for the sacrifices demanded by the policies he supports is not only the point of the question, but far more representative of liberals than your example.


----------



## progressive hunter (Dec 30, 2018)

Correll said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...





he may not have cut any down, but that doesnt mean his existence isnt causing trees to be cut in his name, I would love to see his house and personal activities to see if he is a hypocrite like al gore

whats the old saying about having your own house in order before you complain about others???


----------



## Dana7360 (Dec 30, 2018)

progressive hunter said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...




I couldn't get past the lame statement that is your first sentence.

The person was asked how many trees they have planted. The person replied. So you attacked him saying his contribution is meaningless. If more people planted 4 or 5 trees we would have a lot of new trees planted. Attacking people's efforts is a way to excuse you from taking any action and for no one to take any action. People aren't buying that anymore.

Now I want you to tell that to all the people along highway 12 in Washington state who died in the mud slides caused by the horrible clear cutting. Oh wait. You can't. They're dead.

I want you to tell that to the people in OSO when the clear cut mountain above their homes collapsed and all the mud slid down on top of their homes. Oh you can't they're dead.

Tell that to all the commercial business that uses the Nisqually River. Oh you can't. The forest around it was logged so bad twenty five miles of the riverbank collapsed into the river killing everything there and down stream. They can't use what's left of that river anymore.

Four or five trees can make a difference. Trees keep soil and dirt in place. Old growth have thicker bark to make them more resistant to wildfires. They also create a canopy over the forest floor that protects the snow so it doesn't evaporate with sunshine.

Trees at the top of those mountains and throughout the levels of the mountain would have prevented the mud slides that kills so many people, that kills so much livestock, destroys so many farms, homes and lives.

Yes 4 or 5 trees can make a difference.

I wouldn't be surprised if that's 4 or 5 more than you've planted.

How many trees have you planted?


----------



## Crepitus (Dec 30, 2018)

boedicca said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...


Nevermind.


----------



## progressive hunter (Dec 30, 2018)

Dana7360 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Johnlaw said:
> ...




he didnt contribute anything,,,

I agree on the clear cutting, which is why I say the gov isnt the solution, but if it all stops how will all those timber guys feed their families???

over my lifetime I have planted well over 1000 trees 

the solution is not to call people that disagree morons, but more so to lead by example and show how what you do in your personal life can help solve the problem and try to convince them to do the same
if people are the problem then only people can be the solution

but like we see everyday is those that claim CC is real are in fact the cause of the problem


----------



## boedicca (Dec 30, 2018)

Dana7360 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...




I call shenanigans on that photo.   Rivers that exist due to snow or glacier melt (which is the case with Nisqually), often have periods where the flow is quite weak. There is also a large damn on the river which holds back water at times.

I can find recent photos showing the river full of water.  

I don't see a giant alarm about the river drying up here:

Who We Are – Nisqually River Council


----------



## Dana7360 (Dec 30, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Johnlaw said:
> ...





People like that have been brainwashed to believe that anyone who doesn't agree with them is a liberal, that all liberals are all of the following, a fascist, a socialist, a communist. That all people who don't agree with them are evil liberal, fascists, socialists and communists.

Never mind that it doesn't make any sense. It does to that person and people like that person.

It's really best to not engage with that person and people like it.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Dec 30, 2018)

Oddball said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > If you cannot accept the fact that human caused climate change is a severe national security threat, you are of no use to anyone as we try to come up with workable solutions. So you have no place in the conversation. Ciao!
> ...



First, please indicate that you accept the fact that man made climate change is a serious national security threat. 

Then we can discuss the solutions. 

Thanks.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Dec 30, 2018)

progressive hunter said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Say what?


----------



## boedicca (Dec 30, 2018)

LoneLaugher said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...




First, please admit that you are an Acolyte of the Secular Church of Global(ist) Warming and that you are preaching Faith Based dogma.


----------



## depotoo (Dec 30, 2018)

Dana7360 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Correll said:
> ...


----------



## progressive hunter (Dec 30, 2018)

Dana7360 said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...




I called them fascist because thats their attitude towards those that dont see things their way,,

a good example is the title of this thread

"NO DENIERS"


for those of us that dont believe the hype from the climate thumpers is based on the fact that it has not and can not be proven that humans are the cause of it,,for that you would have to have something to compare it too,,which they dont


----------



## Dana7360 (Dec 30, 2018)

old_guy said:


> I always find any thread/subject matter/challenge humorous in a sad way when the initial attempt is to block anyone with an opposing opinion, whether it be climate change (which is a natural phenomenon and not the man-made disaster fakes like Al Gore make millions promoting) or the Mueller lying fiasco costing taxpayers millions of dollars even while there is a shutdown.



 tions to a problem, those who deny there's any problem and have absolutely zero solutions, it's a waste of time to include those who won't add any solutions.

The debate wasn't about if climate change is real or not. 

The debate was finding solutions about the problem and the problems it causes. You invite people who do have some solutions to the problem. Not people who don't have any solutions.

You're expecting Chuck Todd to change the subject. Which isn't going to happen.

Besides, we've already heard the lies and garbage already. For years. Global climate change is a hoax, nearly 50 years ago someone said the globe was cooling without any proof of it, the Chinese are behind it blah blah blah. We've heard it all before. It's old, tired and no one is listening anymore.

If they had any solutions to offer they would have been invited. Or if the subject was whether global climate change is real or not they would have been invited. That topic has been debated to death. The topic was SOLUTIONS. So when your side can offer solutions you will have a seat at the table when the subject is solutions to the problem. 

Until then stop whining.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Dec 30, 2018)

boedicca said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Why are you addressing me? You asked me to avoid speaking to you years ago. Have you forgotten?


----------



## Dana7360 (Dec 30, 2018)

Mac1958 said:


> Only people who are in complete agreement should communicate on the important issues. We must shut down and shut out all contrarian thought .
> 
> That's where we are, gang. We've gotten that fucked up.
> .





That's so not true.

When your discussion is about solutions to a problem those who refuse to acknowledge the problem exists and have absolutely zero solutions don't have any place at the table.

When they have solutions they will have a place at the table.

The subject isn't if climate change is real. The subject is what solutions can we find for the problem. 

When someone doesn't even believe there's a problem and have no solutions they aren't invited to find solutions. They have no place at the table with people who want to find solutions. 

You're expecting the subject to be different from what it is and you're expecting people to have to listen to the same lies and garbage we've already heard millions of times.

You are not being honest.


----------



## Mac1958 (Dec 30, 2018)

Dana7360 said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Only people who are in complete agreement should communicate on the important issues. We must shut down and shut out all contrarian thought .
> ...


You confirm my point, justify your behavior, and then tell me I'm not being honest.

Okay, got it.
.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Dec 30, 2018)

Hey Mac1958, is human caused climate change a serious national security threat? 

Oops! You’ve told me many times that I don’t merit a response from you to any of my questions. I wonder if I dare?


----------



## Dana7360 (Dec 30, 2018)

Mac1958 said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> > Mac1958 said:
> ...





That's exactly what you're doing and have been from your first post.

You're trying to change the subject to shut down any discussion of solutions.

You're demanding the subject to be what you want it to be. Guess what? MTP isn't your TV show and you have no control of what his subject is.

His subject this week was solutions. Not debate about if it exists.

When looking for solutions you don't invite people who have none and who have worked all their professional ives to prevent any solutions or any action being taken or even if it exists.

When you're looking for solutions you invite people who do actually have solutions. People who don't want to change the subject of the show and actually offer concrete ideas to possibly solve the problem.

If the other side had solutions they would have been invited. Their solution is it's not real, not only do nothing but take actions that we know will make the problem worse. So in a discussion about solutions no, climate change deniers have no place at the table mostly because they have nothing to add to a conversation that's only about finding solutions.

If you wanted to find the solution to a hole in your roof are you going to invite a chef to fix the problem or are you going to invite a roof specialist?


----------



## The Sage of Main Street (Dec 30, 2018)

*Fundamentally, It's About Getting Funding*

What are Noady Niers?  Is that some newly invented greenhouse gas you want to scare us with?


----------



## Dana7360 (Dec 30, 2018)

progressive hunter said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...




Good. I'm glad you have taken steps to plant trees.

The United States government is the people of our nation. We need everyone to help out. Not just a few here and there.

The problem is a big one which requires big solutions. it can only be done with people and government working together for the solutions.


----------



## Mac1958 (Dec 30, 2018)

Dana7360 said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Dana7360 said:
> ...


I'm not demanding anything. I just made an observation and heads blew up.  

I'd bet that not everyone on the other side of the aisle is a whacked out talk radio hardcore denier.  Maybe there's some way to at least start somewhere.

Oh, I'm just kidding.  I no longer expect wingers on either end drop their egos, open their minds and try a little.  

That skill is gone. 
.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Dec 30, 2018)

Dana7360 said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Dana7360 said:
> ...


Why do you drones lie and demand we give up our freedoms and way of life for your fantasy problems?


----------



## progressive hunter (Dec 30, 2018)

Dana7360 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Dana7360 said:
> ...


----------



## gtopa1 (Dec 30, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> Watching Meet the Press.  They have dedicated the whole hour to climate change.  They have no deniers on the panel and as Chuck Todd correctly stated the science is long since settled.  Now it is time to discuss  solutions.
> 
> A recent poll shows even a majority of Republicans do not dispute anthropogenic climate change.
> Opinion | More Republicans Than You Think Support Action on Climate Change
> ...



No "deniers"? Of what? Fuck off; you're living in a failed socialist paradigm. 

Greg


----------



## gtopa1 (Dec 30, 2018)

Dana7360 said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Only people who are in complete agreement should communicate on the important issues. We must shut down and shut out all contrarian thought .
> ...



If I want to ask about engineering I ask an engineer; not a stupid Green activist.

Greg


----------



## progressive hunter (Dec 30, 2018)




----------



## progressive hunter (Dec 30, 2018)




----------



## progressive hunter (Dec 30, 2018)




----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Dec 30, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> Watching Meet the Press.  They have dedicated the whole hour to climate change.  They have no deniers on the panel and as Chuck Todd correctly stated the science is long since settled.  Now it is time to discuss  solutions.
> 
> A recent poll shows even a majority of Republicans do not dispute anthropogenic climate change.
> Opinion | More Republicans Than You Think Support Action on Climate Change
> ...


Ignoring the fact of climate change isn’t ‘science’ at all.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Dec 30, 2018)

depotoo said:


> So you applaud bias and non diversity.  Got it.


Wrong.

Acknowledging the fact that 2 + 2 = 5 is wrong isn’t to oppose diversity.


----------



## progressive hunter (Dec 30, 2018)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > So you applaud bias and non diversity.  Got it.
> ...


OH GREAT,,,CLAYTONS HERE


----------



## LoneLaugher (Dec 30, 2018)

LoneLaugher said:


> Hey Mac1958, is human caused climate change a serious national security threat?
> 
> Oops! You’ve told me many times that I don’t merit a response from you to any of my questions. I wonder if I dare?



Too tough?


----------



## Olde Europe (Dec 30, 2018)

Here's the challenge for all to see whether Mac still has the capacity to think, or merely retreats behind his shtick dismissing out of hand everyone who has the temerity to disagree with him:

Hey Mac1958, is human caused climate change a serious national security threat?​
That should be easy enough to answer.  The U.S. military, in studies conducted by the Pentagon, did in fact deem AGW a security threat, and, even more, AGW was deemed a "threat multiplier".

So, is that so?  Or shall we weigh the above against the "other side's" claim that AGW ain't happening, that if it happens it ain't a problem because humans like it warm, and even if humans don't like it that warm, there's nothing we can do about it, and thinking about it is pointless anyway?

Since you declare the wingers communicative failures, you can at least demonstrate that you are the one to build bridges.


----------



## sparky (Dec 30, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> We need to discuss only solutions and adaptations.


inevitable....



Olde Europe said:


> That should be easy enough to answer. The U.S. military, in studies conducted by the Pentagon, did in fact deem AGW a security threat, and, even more, AGW was deemed a "threat multiplier".


Read that Olde One , of  course one could paint the _open check _book pentagon policy _biased_ on one hand, yet they do have a stellar record for outing threats on the other

much more qualified than our CIC

jmho

~S~


----------



## progressive hunter (Dec 30, 2018)

Olde Europe said:


> Here's the challenge for all to see whether Mac still has the capacity to think, or merely retreats behind his shtick dismissing out of hand everyone who has the temerity to disagree with him:
> 
> Hey Mac1958, is human caused climate change a serious national security threat?​
> That should be easy enough to answer.  The U.S. military, in studies conducted by the Pentagon, did in fact deem AGW a security threat, and, even more, AGW was deemed a "threat multiplier".
> ...




"Hey Mac1958, is human caused climate change a serious national security threat?"

HEY OLDE GUY!!!

thats a loaded question,,,you're assuming that climate change is caused by humans,

I have seen no proof to back up that claim,,,


----------



## boedicca (Dec 30, 2018)

LoneLaugher said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...




I don't think of you.


----------



## sparky (Dec 30, 2018)

progressive hunter said:


> I have seen no proof to back up that claim,,,



molre no proof is _ever_ enough......~S~


----------



## LoneLaugher (Dec 30, 2018)

boedicca said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



Now you lie.


----------



## Slyhunter (Dec 30, 2018)

Dana7360 said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Only people who are in complete agreement should communicate on the important issues. We must shut down and shut out all contrarian thought .
> ...


Your premise is in error. Can't find a solution for a problem that doesn't exist.


----------



## progressive hunter (Dec 30, 2018)

sparky said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > I have seen no proof to back up that claim,,,
> ...


thats irrelevant since none has been given,,,we can discuss that once its happened


----------



## boedicca (Dec 30, 2018)

LoneLaugher said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...




No.  I don't think of you.  I responded to a post.  That has nothing to do with thinking about you or discussing a comment which I don't recall making but which obviously affected you enough that you appear to be obsessed about it.  

And now back to our regularly scheduled programming:  AGW is a crock of shit.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Dec 30, 2018)

boedicca said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



You bitched and whined so much about my responding to your posts that I agreed to give you your safe space. You must have gained some new confidence. Good for you!


----------



## ph3iron (Dec 30, 2018)

Slyhunter said:


> ph3iron said:
> 
> 
> > Slyhunter said:
> ...


I guess you were never in Miami in a rainstorm.
And btw, Greenland is greener


----------



## Mac1958 (Dec 30, 2018)

Olde Europe said:


> Here's the challenge for all to see whether Mac still has the capacity to think, or merely retreats behind his shtick dismissing out of hand everyone who has the temerity to disagree with him:
> 
> Hey Mac1958, is human caused climate change a serious national security threat?​
> That should be easy enough to answer.  The U.S. military, in studies conducted by the Pentagon, did in fact deem AGW a security threat, and, even more, AGW was deemed a "threat multiplier".
> ...


Oh yes, absolutely!
.


----------



## Mac1958 (Dec 30, 2018)

LoneLaugher said:


> Hey Mac1958, is human caused climate change a serious national security threat?
> 
> Oops! You’ve told me many times that I don’t merit a response from you to any of my questions. I wonder if I dare?


Yes, absolutely!
.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Dec 30, 2018)

Mac1958 said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Hey Mac1958, is human caused climate change a serious national security threat?
> ...



Good. Let’s move on.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 30, 2018)

Olde Europe said:


> Here's the challenge for all to see whether Mac still has the capacity to think, or merely retreats behind his shtick dismissing out of hand everyone who has the temerity to disagree with him:
> 
> Hey Mac1958, is human caused climate change a serious national security threat?​
> That should be easy enough to answer.  The U.S. military, in studies conducted by the Pentagon, did in fact deem AGW a security threat, and, even more, AGW was deemed a "threat multiplier".
> ...


Oooooo....Prop players within  The State say that they need more money and power!....Now there's something we don't see every day!


----------



## Elton (Dec 30, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> Elton said:
> 
> 
> > Johnlaw said:
> ...








All I see are opinion pieces.  I see no science.  I am not a scientist, but I have a good grounding in how science works, and the one thing I constantly see from climatologists is a abandonment of the scientific method.  That is troubling to me.  It should be troubling to you too.


----------



## Olde Europe (Dec 31, 2018)

Mac1958 said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > Hey Mac1958, is human caused climate change a serious national security threat?​
> ...



How would you recommend we deal with those who deny the threat even exists, and who, insofar as they hold sway over U.S. policy making, would leave the U.S. unprepared?


----------



## Darkwind (Dec 31, 2018)

Chuck Todd is an imbecile.  It's settled science.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 31, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> > Johnlaw said:
> ...




Nothing will work, the climate will change regardless



.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 31, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Still no argument or evidence, huh?
> ...




No data


----------



## cnm (Dec 31, 2018)

Oddball said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > *scientific consensus*.  .
> ...


Some disconnected phrases that show you know nothing about science. Science doesn't do proof, it does evidence. Consensus is obtained when it's generally agreed the evidence presented supports the explanation given.


----------



## cnm (Dec 31, 2018)

Oddball said:


> And all we've heard from the warmers are models that have *never ever* been predictive,


Yeah? Yet observed temperatures are within predicted range.





_Updated version of IPCC AR5 Figure 11.25a, showing observations and the CMIP5 model projections relative to 1986-2005. The black lines represent observational datasets (HadCRUT4.5, Cowtan & Way, NASA GISTEMP, NOAA GlobalTemp, BEST)._
_Comparing CMIP5 & observations | Climate Lab Book_


----------



## cnm (Dec 31, 2018)

Oddball said:


> Here's a solution: prove your "science", positively quantify it, repeat it for all to see, show your static control model, and disprove *all* other possible counter-explanations.


Again, science does evidence, not proof. All you are doing is showing you know nothing of the scientific method.


----------



## cnm (Dec 31, 2018)

LoneLaugher said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...


Solutions now...


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 31, 2018)

Olde Europe said:


> Here's the challenge for all to see whether Mac still has the capacity to think, or merely retreats behind his shtick dismissing out of hand everyone who has the temerity to disagree with him:
> 
> Hey Mac1958, is human caused climate change a serious national security threat?​
> That should be easy enough to answer.  The U.S. military, in studies conducted by the Pentagon, did in fact deem AGW a security threat, and, even more, AGW was deemed a "threat multiplier".
> ...




Uhm the US military also thinks space aliens are a threat also


.


----------



## cnm (Dec 31, 2018)

_The second panel shows the AR5 assessment for global temperatures in the 2016-2035 period. The HadCRUT4.6 observations are shown in black with their 5-95% uncertainty. Several other observational datasets are shown in blue. The light grey shading shows the CMIP5 5-95% range for historical (pre-2005) & all future forcing pathways (RCPs, post-2005); the grey lines show the min-max range. The dark grey shading shows the projections using a 2006-2012 reference period. The red hatching shows the IPCC AR5 indicative likely (>66%) range for the 2016-2035 period.

 The observations for 2016-7 fall near, or just above, the top of the ‘likely’ range depending on the dataset. 2016 was warmed slightly by the El Nino event in the Pacific. The years 2015-2017 were all more than 1°C above a 1850-1900 (pseudo-pre-industrial) baseline. _




Comparing CMIP5 & observations | Climate Lab Book​


----------



## Mac1958 (Dec 31, 2018)

Olde Europe said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Olde Europe said:
> ...


Whatever way you think is best!
.


----------



## Mac1958 (Dec 31, 2018)

LoneLaugher said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > LoneLaugher said:
> ...


Yes, absolutely!
.


----------



## cnm (Dec 31, 2018)

I bet Bear finds the fact I've tech'd in labs measuring environmental impacts the funniest thing of all. Even funnier than his own complete and invincible ignorance of the science on which he bloviates.

Which is pretty funny, given.


----------



## cnm (Dec 31, 2018)

So, an attempt at a solution by NZ, of which I approve, is the halting of fossil fuel exploration and survey permits. Way to go, Jacinda.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Dec 31, 2018)

cnm said:


> I bet Bear finds the fact I've tech'd in labs measuring environmental impacts the funniest thing of all. Even funnier than his own complete and invincible ignorance of the science on which he bloviates.
> 
> Which is pretty funny, given.




No data


.


----------



## gtopa1 (Dec 31, 2018)

progressive hunter said:


>



Absolutely reforest areas that have been degraded; no worries on that at all. However, SENSIBLE forest management please.

Greg


----------



## cnm (Dec 31, 2018)

bear513 said:


> No data


Hilarity. I love it. The invincibly ignorant idiot can't even recognise the data given in the two graphics posted, with sources.


----------



## gtopa1 (Dec 31, 2018)

cnm said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > And all we've heard from the warmers are models that have *never ever* been predictive,
> ...








Not the Poms' fault!!!

Greg


----------



## LoneLaugher (Dec 31, 2018)

Elton said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> > Elton said:
> ...



You see no such thing. Your lack of integrity concerns me. It should concern you too.


----------



## iceberg (Dec 31, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > So you applaud bias and non diversity.  Got it.
> ...


you applaud forcing your views on others. fuck em, really.


----------



## TNHarley (Dec 31, 2018)

Settled science?
Clinate change deniers?
Lol what a thoughtless, retarded OP


----------



## cnm (Dec 31, 2018)

One can lead a rightard to data but one cannot make it think...


----------



## progressive hunter (Dec 31, 2018)

cnm said:


> One can lead a rightard to data but one cannot make it think...




but we havent been given data,,,just opinions


----------



## Pilot1 (Dec 31, 2018)

Climate always changes, and has naturally, and drastically over Millennia.

Man Made Climate Change = Government HOAX, and SCAM.


----------



## Deno (Dec 31, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> Watching Meet the Press.  They have dedicated the whole hour to climate change.  They have no deniers on the panel and as Chuck Todd correctly stated the science is long since settled.  Now it is time to discuss  solutions.
> 
> A recent poll shows even a majority of Republicans do not dispute anthropogenic climate change.
> Opinion | More Republicans Than You Think Support Action on Climate Change
> ...




Hey Dumb Ass....

The climate has been changing since earth was a rock...…..


----------



## Rustic (Dec 31, 2018)




----------



## Pilot1 (Dec 31, 2018)

When Al Gore gives up his private jets, caravans of SUV's, multiple, huge mansions, and carbon footprint, I MAY believe him.  Until then go efff yourself LIAR.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 31, 2018)

cnm said:


> One can lead a rightard to data but one cannot make it think...


I've looked at the data.... It has  *never ever* been shown to be predictive.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 31, 2018)

_*"The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t."

*_
~Keven Trenberth; High Priest for the Tabernacle of  Anthropogenic G̶l̶o̶b̶a̶l̶ ̶W̶a̶r̶m̶i̶n̶g̶ Climate Change


----------



## Oddball (Dec 31, 2018)

cnm said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Olde Europe said:
> ...


I know enough about linguistics to recognize deliberately deceptive language when I see it...."Consensus" is political, not scientific.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 31, 2018)

cnm said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a solution: prove your "science", positively quantify it, repeat it for all to see, show your static control model, and disprove *all* other possible counter-explanations.
> ...


I just stated several of the long-standing acid tests of scientific method, fool.....If it's anyone who knows nothing it's you.


----------



## Rustic (Dec 31, 2018)

Al gore the worlds leading climatologist...


----------



## cnm (Dec 31, 2018)

Oddball said:


> I've looked at the data


And invincibly ignored it.


----------



## cnm (Dec 31, 2018)

Oddball said:


> I know enough about linguistics to recognize deliberately deceptive language when I see it...."Consensus" is political, not scientific.


It is the very foundation of scientific progress. Just like the scientific associations have a consensus about AGW they have a consensus about consensus. Deniers deny, it's what they do. 

No worries, NZ has denied further permits to explore or survey for fossil fuels. It's a start.


----------



## cnm (Dec 31, 2018)

Oddball said:


> I just stated several of the long-standing acid tests of scientific method, fool.....If it's anyone who knows nothing it's you.


You used the word 'prove'. It shows you know *nothing* about science. The words are 'evidence' and 'consensus'.


----------



## Oddball (Dec 31, 2018)

cnm said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > I just stated several of the long-standing acid tests of scientific method, fool.....If it's anyone who knows nothing it's you.
> ...


If you can't prove your hypothesis, repeat it, then disprove any and all plausible other possibilities for the given phenomenon,  then you don't have so much a a popcorn fart let alone a theory....And 'consensus" is still a political process, not a scientific one.

You know less than nothing about both science and semantics.


----------



## Olde Europe (Dec 31, 2018)

Mac1958 said:


> Olde Europe said:
> 
> 
> > How would you recommend we deal with those who deny the threat even exists, and who, insofar as they hold sway over U.S. policy making, would leave the U.S. unprepared?
> ...



Don't be such a coward!

But, we already know where you stand.  You recommend we give liars, stooges, misfits, scientific illiterates and flat-earthers a seat at the table.  Because... debate.  You never know what pops up, or so you inform us.  Since a seat at the table with no say on policy would just be a sham, in effect you recommend the U.S. be less prepared to counter the threat than she otherwise could be, less healthy, less prosperous, more miserable.

I, for one, cannot think of a plausible reason to do something so self-defeating.


----------



## progressive hunter (Dec 31, 2018)

Olde Europe said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Olde Europe said:
> ...





dear olde guy,,,

we know youre full of sht or you would just prove them wrong instead of the personal attack.

we are willing to discuss the solutions to a clear problem, but your evidence doesnt prove humans are the problem

it seems your only solution is bigger government and control of the people,
solutions never come from the barrel of a gun,,,better to just plant trees


----------



## Slyhunter (Dec 31, 2018)




----------



## blackhawk (Dec 31, 2018)

If you want no opposing views then you’re really not having a discussion you just have a bunch of people sitting around agreeing with each other. That is more of a circle jerk than a discussion.


----------



## Elton (Dec 31, 2018)

LoneLaugher said:


> Elton said:
> 
> 
> > Johnlaw said:
> ...








Yes, I do.  I have seen climatologists assert that repeatability in their experiments isn't necessary.  I think it was Trenberth who said that.  I hate educate you but that assertion is a complete abandonment of the scientific method.  If it isn't repeatable, it isn't measurable, which means it ain't scientific.


----------



## LoneLaugher (Dec 31, 2018)

Elton said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> > Elton said:
> ...



You’re not a serious person. Please find someone who will humor you.


----------



## cnm (Dec 31, 2018)

Oddball said:


> If you can't prove your hypothesis, repeat it, then disprove any and all plausible other possibilities for the given phenomenon, then you don't have so much a a popcorn fart let alone a theory....And 'consensus" is still a political process, not a scientific one.


Hypotheses are not proven. If that was the case Newtonian physics would still be 'proven', instead of useful, when they have been superseded. Proof only exists in maths. This is a basic point of science, the ignorance of which illustrates your scientific ignorance. Science does evidence and consensus.


----------



## cnm (Dec 31, 2018)

blackhawk said:


> If you want no opposing views then you’re really not having a discussion you just have a bunch of people sitting around agreeing with each other. That is more of a circle jerk than a discussion.


No one will deny you've just wanked off.


----------



## jasonnfree (Dec 31, 2018)

It most scientists agree that man causes global warming, why not go along with them?   Kind of funny how it's right down the middle politically.  The 'left' says  GW is caused by mankind, the 'right' says no.  If there are doubts, why not opt for green energy anyway just to be on the safe side and also we'll have less pollution.


----------



## blackhawk (Dec 31, 2018)

cnm said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> > If you want no opposing views then you’re really not having a discussion you just have a bunch of people sitting around agreeing with each other. That is more of a circle jerk than a discussion.
> ...


You're mommy help you write with that one?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 31, 2018)

Oddball said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...


How about...you freakish deniers who are on the wrong side of facts, science, and history go pull each others' taffy in one of your 9 million denier threads? ( As we all know, you can't do it in any educated company.)

This thread is about the great new trend of not inviting deniers to the table to give "equal time" to their laughable nonsense. You fools have been regulated to "flat earther status". The only reason you don't realize it is because you are all huddled here in your little self help group on the internet, crying on each others' shoulders and telling each other you are normal.


----------



## cnm (Dec 31, 2018)

_*Scientific consensus* is what most scientists in a particular field of study agree is true on a given question, when disagreement on the question is limited and insignificant.

The consensus may or may not turn out to be confirmed by further research. When it is, a hypothesis becomes known as a (lower-case) theory, or, given enough time and evidence, an (upper case) Theory, such as Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Numerous times in the history of science one theory has been superseded by another as anomalies or counter-examples accrued over time and the scientific community has discarded an older theory in favor of a new theory which accounted for more of the data in a more satisfactory way. This often occurs as the result of improvements in the accuracy of the instruments used to observe, record and measure phenomena.
Scientific consensus - RationalWiki_​


----------



## cnm (Dec 31, 2018)

blackhawk said:


> You're mommy help you write with that one?


Need a tissue?


----------



## cnm (Dec 31, 2018)

More fuel efficient vehicle engines will contribute to lower CO2 emissions, unfortunately I believe Individual 1 has reversed that trend.


----------



## Blackrook (Dec 31, 2018)

The push to more fuel efficient "cars" has caused the auto manufacturers and consumers to transition to "trucks" which are under no such restriction.  "Trucks" include SUVs, pick-ups, and even those smaller types of SUVs.  So, really, nothing will be accomplished by cracking down on "cars" because soon there will be no such thing as "cars."


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 31, 2018)

Blackrook said:


> "trucks" which are under no such restriction.


Except that's totally false , and there are fuel restrictions on trucks.


----------



## cnm (Dec 31, 2018)

Blackrook said:


> The push to more fuel efficient "cars" has caused the auto manufacturers and consumers to transition to "trucks" which are under no such restriction. "Trucks" include SUVs, pick-ups, and even those smaller types of SUVs. So, really, nothing will be accomplished by cracking down on "cars" because soon there will be no such thing as "cars."



As though more efficient vehicle engines will not lead to lower CO2 emissions. This sort of shit is why the idiots should be banned from the table.


----------



## blackhawk (Dec 31, 2018)

cnm said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> > You're mommy help you write with that one?
> ...


No you need help coming up with a good response?


----------



## cnm (Dec 31, 2018)

jasonnfree said:


> It most scientists agree that man causes global warming, why not go along with them?


The _'I've got mine, fuck you'_ brigade doesn't want to make *any* sacrifice.


----------



## ding (Dec 31, 2018)

Johnlaw said:


> Watching Meet the Press.  They have dedicated the whole hour to climate change.  They have no deniers on the panel and as Chuck Todd correctly stated the science is long since settled.  Now it is time to discuss  solutions.
> 
> A recent poll shows even a majority of Republicans do not dispute anthropogenic climate change.
> Opinion | More Republicans Than You Think Support Action on Climate Change
> ...


We are currently in an interglacial cycle. We have been for the past 22,000 years and the earth has been warming for the past 22,000 years.  Our present temperature is still well below the peak temperatures of the previous interglacial cycles which means we are still in the normal range of temperatures for an interglacial cycle.  Let that sink in.

When it comes to carbon emissions we aren’t the problem.  Our emissions could go to zero to overnight and the rest of the world would replace them in 5 short years. Let that sink in.

The world we live in today is considered an icehouse world and is geologically speaking rare. The conditions which led to it are still present today; atmospheric CO2 ~400 ppm and polars regions isolated from warm marine currents. We are presently in an interglacial cycle and our temperatures are still well below the peak temperatures of previous interglacial cycles which means we are still in the normal range of the past 400,000 years. 

We know from proxies for atmospheric CO2 and temperature that CO2 does not drive climate change, it reinforces climate change. 

The IPCC B1 projections are actually a pretty representative projection for what we can expect which is a continuation of the warming of the past 22,000 years. Unfortunately, nut jobs have latched onto the IPCC’s unrealistic projections for increases of carbon emissions beyond the well established trend of the past 14 years and they pile on temperature increases from unsubstantiated feedback which in reality work towards equilibrating the earth’s climate rather than adding to its temperature.

So let me ask you this question, what do you think atmospheric CO2 levels will be in the year 2100?


----------



## skookerasbil (Dec 31, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > cnm said:
> ...



Ok....so you are implying that you are on the right side of the facts. But that's been dogma for many many years now and what has changed? Ummm......absolutely nothing for the past 20 years. Solar energy is laughable....still providing well under 2% of our electricity. Wind...about double that! W0W!!

You suckers keep taking bows in front of banners.

Show us any evidence that people care about climate change. Links please!


----------



## skookerasbil (Dec 31, 2018)

You climate crusader bozo's can talk about "the science" until the cows come home. Fossil Fuels dominate and will for decades.....because they are cheaper and always will be.....doy.

But dont take my word for it.....look at any EIA projection over the past five years!! Every year I see it, my balls start hurting from laughing so hard thinking about the suckers talking about "deniers" for the past 10 years!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 31, 2018)

skookerasbil said:


> Ummm......absolutely nothing for the past 20 years.


Stupid and wrong...take a hike, the deniers' club is that way -->>


----------



## ding (Dec 31, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Ummm......absolutely nothing for the past 20 years.
> ...


Sign me up for it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 31, 2018)

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...


You got it! First, the lobotomy. Then, ten years of total immersion in right wing propaganda. Your religious nuttery puts you a step ahead already....so you're practically in!


----------



## ding (Dec 31, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


What do you know about global warming?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 31, 2018)

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


 How much climate science have you published?


----------



## ding (Dec 31, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


None. What do you know about global warming?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 31, 2018)

ding said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Some!  And thanks for asking.


----------



## ding (Dec 31, 2018)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


Can you at least tell me why you believe the planet is warming?


----------



## ding (Jan 1, 2019)

I guess he can’t.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 1, 2019)

jasonnfree said:


> It most scientists agree that man causes global warming, why not go along with them?   Kind of funny how it's right down the middle politically.  The 'left' says  GW is caused by mankind, the 'right' says no.  If there are doubts, why not opt for green energy anyway just to be on the safe side and also we'll have less pollution.




$$$


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 1, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > cnm said:
> ...




Translation ~ the alarmist can't out debate us


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 1, 2019)

cnm said:


> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> > It most scientists agree that man causes global warming, why not go along with them?
> ...




Not for your fuckingj junkjscience ..and wanting to redistribute wealth per climate justice crap


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 1, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 1, 2019)

The alarmists of the world cant post up a single link that displays where the science is mattering in the real world!!Ummm....the science isnt transcending anywhere outside the field of science. Governments remain unimpressed with the science.....after 20 years of climate crusaders standing proudly in front of billboards taking bows, renewable energy remains a fringe joke!


----------



## cnm (Jan 1, 2019)

skookerasbil said:


> The alarmists of the world cant post up a single link that displays where the science is mattering in the real world!!


The government of New Zealand has ceased to issue permits to entities to explore and survey for fossil fuels. So let's see you rescind your mistaken assertion.


----------



## cnm (Jan 1, 2019)

bear513 said:


> Not for your fuckingj junkjscience ..and wanting to redistribute wealth per climate justice crap


As I said, *any* sacrifice. The US ignorant denier position.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 1, 2019)

cnm said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Not for your fuckingj junkjscience ..and wanting to redistribute wealth per climate justice crap
> ...




Prove I am a denier...



.


----------



## cnm (Jan 1, 2019)

bear513 said:


> Prove I am a denier...


I have only evidence.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 1, 2019)

cnm said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > The alarmists of the world cant post up a single link that displays where the science is mattering in the real world!!
> ...




NZ is a huge joke, they are buying carbon credits..


Where you going to get the money from?


New Zealand's carbon credits scheme a farce, says Morgan Foundation report


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 1, 2019)

cnm said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Prove I am a denier...
> ...




Post the evidence I am a denier, you guys throw that term around like a bunch of dumbass.

.


----------



## cnm (Jan 1, 2019)

skookerasbil said:


> The alarmists of the world cant post up a single link that displays where the science is mattering in the real world!!


The deniers of the world can only deny as the world goes on without them.


----------



## cnm (Jan 1, 2019)

bear513 said:


> NZ is a huge joke,


Deny no more permits to explore/survey for fossil fuels will be issued by NZ. That's all you're good for.


----------



## cnm (Jan 1, 2019)

bear513 said:


> Post the evidence I am a denier





bear513 said:


> Not for your fuckingj junkjscience


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 1, 2019)

cnm said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > NZ is a huge joke,
> ...




What the hell does that have to do with buying carbon credits to cheat.?


.



.
.


----------



## cnm (Jan 1, 2019)

I think I've had enough exchanges with drunks tonight.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 1, 2019)

cnm said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Post the evidence I am a denier
> ...




That's not proof all you have is propaganda junk science..I never ever said man has no effect...


How much is the question you can't answer..


----------



## cnm (Jan 1, 2019)

bear513 said:


> What the hell does that have to do with buying carbon credits to cheat.?


What the hell does a badly implemented scheme have to do with AGW having no effect in the real world?


----------



## cnm (Jan 1, 2019)

bear513 said:


> That's not proof all you have is propaganda junk science..I never ever said man has no effect...


You denied the science. You are a US rightard denier.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 1, 2019)

cnm said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > What the hell does that have to do with buying carbon credits to cheat.?
> ...




Because you are not doing anything, continuing to pump out C02 like normal.


And paying off bribes to do so.

.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 1, 2019)

cnm said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > That's not proof all you have is propaganda junk science..I never ever said man has no effect...
> ...




How can I be a denier when I know man contributes?

And there is no fucking concenus on how much is natural varation and how much man contributes.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 1, 2019)

cnm said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > That's not proof all you have is propaganda junk science..I never ever said man has no effect...
> ...




Once again


From your own link


----------



## cnm (Jan 1, 2019)

Oh. My mistake. The scientific consensus is that human activity emitted greenhouse gases are the primary driver of climate change. You agree with that? 

Or do you deny it?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 1, 2019)

cnm said:


> Oh. My mistake. The scientific consensus is that human activity emitted greenhouse gases are the primary driver of climate change. You agree with that?






Good so I don't have to hear from you that the consensus is 100% man made?


Deal.


.


----------



## ptbw forever (Jan 1, 2019)

Olde Europe said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > So you applaud bias and non diversity.  Got it.
> ...


Excluding the farters would mean excluding the Democrats.


----------



## cnm (Jan 1, 2019)

bear513 said:


> Good so I don't have to hear from you that the consensus is 100% man made?


Gods.


----------



## Olde Europe (Jan 1, 2019)

cnm said:


> Gods.



While canoodling with denialingdongs, in effect enabling them, you have no standing to complain.  Or so I find...


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 1, 2019)

cnm said:


> Oh. My mistake. The scientific consensus is that human activity emitted greenhouse gases are the primary driver of climate change. You agree with that?
> 
> Or do you deny it?




Lol...nobody cares dummy.

s0n....you need some real responsibilities in life to get a proper perspective. Words dont matter for dick in life....its all about behavior. Indeed....its about winning. On climate change, progressives lOsE huge in the real world. Climate change action is non-existent. The science.....not mattering. Sorry.... like I said time to get some real responsibilities in life.


----------



## ding (Jan 1, 2019)

cnm said:


> Oh. My mistake. The scientific consensus is that human activity emitted greenhouse gases are the primary driver of climate change. You agree with that?
> 
> Or do you deny it?


It never has driven climate change in the past.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 1, 2019)

bear513 said:


> Translation ~ the alarmist can't out debate us


Any of you morons would get laughed out of any educated company. Try it. Step outside your little anonymous internet self help group and publish some science. Head to a university forum of scientists and ask the moronic questions you ask here, and say the moronic things you say here. Then watch the video of you getting embarrassed go viral.

Maybe then you idiots will understand that declarations of victory are not the same as actual victories.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 1, 2019)

skookerasbil said:


> Lol...nobody cares


Ah yes ...post number 10,000 by the fool skooker telling us all how much he doesn't care....


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 1, 2019)

bear513 said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


You need to clarify your position, as it is all over the place:

First you deny the scientific consensus, then proceed as if it is true and simply whine about the proposed solutions. Which is it, dumbass?


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 1, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Lol...nobody cares
> ...



Lol.....beyond the banner, where is your side winning on this?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 1, 2019)

skookerasbil said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...


Ah, I see. So you're big point is that stupid people are powerful, if there are enough of them. Good for you


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Jan 1, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > cnm said:
> ...


What is the ideal temperature for the world to be at right now?  Simple question, right?


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 1, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...




Lol....same as you dummies cheering David Hogg and Colin Kapernick! Veritable cartoon characters to everybody except those who celebrate....cartoon characters that get media attention but accomplish zero. Just like the climate crusaders with their billboard *BUT THE SCIENCE SAYS!!
*
It actually is about who's not winning!!


----------



## ding (Jan 1, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


Where did you run off to?

I’m still waiting for you to explain to me why you believe global warming is real. 

You do have some reason for believing it, right?


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 1, 2019)

Johnlaw said:


> Watching Meet the Press.  They have dedicated the whole hour to climate change.  They have no deniers on the panel and as Chuck Todd correctly stated the science is long since settled.  Now it is time to discuss  solutions.
> 
> A recent poll shows even a majority of Republicans do not dispute anthropogenic climate change.
> Opinion | More Republicans Than You Think Support Action on Climate Change
> ...




I am not a climate change denier, climate changes all the time, all on it's own.  I don't believe that giving control over our economies to people who believe in man made global warming is wise or intelligent.   That this "news" program would block out people who disagree with the global warming religion is just silly..... the science deniers are those who believe in man made global warming as a religion........and those who want to use it as an excuse to take over societies for their own power and ambitions...


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Jan 1, 2019)

Still waiting for the ultimate temperature that the Earth needs to be at, so we dont all die..


----------



## cnm (Jan 1, 2019)

skookerasbil said:


> Climate change action is non-existent. The science.....not mattering.


Hey Snooks, how come you ignored this? Your assertion has been falsified and we see nothing.



cnm said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > The alarmists of the world cant post up a single link that displays where the science is mattering in the real world!!
> ...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 1, 2019)

andaronjim said:


> Still waiting for the ultimate temperature that the Earth needs to be at, so we dont all die


No you're not. You have zero honest interest in learning anything about this topic. Your stupid question shows that as much as your will full ignorance does.

Sorry, denier...but you're no longer invited to the table.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous (Jan 1, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > Still waiting for the ultimate temperature that the Earth needs to be at, so we dont all die
> ...


I asked you what is the ultimate temperature that the Earth needs to be at, and again, you divert because you stupid fuck, cant answer it, can you?  Dumbass....

Not one religious global warming fanatic can answer this question, because they cant tell us, they lie all the time....


----------



## cnm (Jan 1, 2019)

2aguy said:


> I am not a climate change denier, climate changes all the time, all on it's own.


One who denies human activity emitted greenhouse gases are the primary driver of climate change is a denier. Other table for you.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 1, 2019)

cnm said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Climate change action is non-existent. The science.....not mattering.
> ...



Sorry s0n, but your input doesnt count here....

New Zealand! Ok s0n!


----------



## cnm (Jan 1, 2019)

skookerasbil said:


> Sorry s0n, but your input doesnt count here....


So, snookers, shown false in his hypothesis, can't admit it. Must be a denier. What are you doing here?


----------



## cnm (Jan 1, 2019)

skookerasbil said:


> The alarmists of the world cant post up a single link that displays where the science is mattering in the real world!!


Another effect of AGW Snookers will ignore or deny. That's how he rolls. That's how all deniers roll. What are they doing here?


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 1, 2019)

Growth rates = fake. All progressives go with the fakery of growth rate graphs. Just like the use of words like "increased" , "higher" , "significant" , "hotter", "worsening" etc.......progressives always suckered by loose associations.

We've been hearing about "growth rates" of solar energy for over 10 years. Lol....but still only provides 1.3% of our electricity. Combined with wind, still less than 5%. Oh....but those "growth rate" graphs sure are impressive.. One will notice, renewable growth rate graphs compare levels only to themselves and never in a context against fossil fuels.

It's more compelling to watch a slug cross America than watch the laughable "growth" of renewable energy. All about costs.....oh, and of course, progressives have fake data on that too!! Renewable energy grows slowly because of one reason......doy......its too expensive!

Oooooooops


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 1, 2019)

More Proof the skeptics are WINNING!!


----------



## cnm (Jan 1, 2019)

skookerasbil said:


> Growth rates = fake.


 Your assertion has been falsified, not once but twice, from Bloomberg of all places; all you can do is deny, ignore, deny. What are you doing here? Your table is over there  ------>


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 1, 2019)

Yep


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 1, 2019)

cnm said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > I am not a climate change denier, climate changes all the time, all on it's own.
> ...




Nope.... I am the one who believes in actual science....you guys deny the real science and desperately want to use fake science to push a political agenda.


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 1, 2019)

cnm said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > The alarmists of the world cant post up a single link that displays where the science is mattering in the real world!!
> ...




Yeah....trusting a communist government to tell the truth about a failing technology....

Why China is having so many problems ramping up wind power

These issues are capable of putting a substantial dent in China’s wind electricity output, it turns out. The researchers noted that in 2012, China’s wind-generated electricity was 39.3 terawatt-hours less than that of the United States.


----------



## cnm (Jan 1, 2019)

2aguy said:


> I am the one who believes in actual science


The actual scientific position is that human activity emitted greenhouse gases are the primary driver of climate change. You deny that. You are a denier, what are you doing here? Other table is that way --------->


----------



## cnm (Jan 1, 2019)

2aguy said:


> Yeah....trusting a communist government to tell the truth about a failing technology....


I can see how you'd distrust a capitalist institution like Bloomberg to tell you the truth. Deniers will deny everything. You're in the wrong thread.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 1, 2019)

2aguy said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...




I laugh when the k00ks tout Chinese renewables " growth". Lol....they are still opening 1-2 coal plants/ month and will increase coal production by......ready for this....50% by 2050!!

But the k00ks keep telling us " coal is on the way out"

The people aren't st00pid....which is why in every election, the Tom Steyer backed climate candidates get their clocks cleaned!


----------



## cnm (Jan 1, 2019)

skookerasbil said:


> More Proof the skeptics are WINNING!!


If sceptics were winning temperatures would not be increasing. The other table is that way -------->


----------



## cnm (Jan 1, 2019)

skookerasbil said:


> I laugh when the k00ks tout Chinese renewables " growth"


Yeah, Bloomberg. Why are you still here? Your assertion has been falsified.


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 1, 2019)

cnm said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > More Proof the skeptics are WINNING!!
> ...




Temps aren't increasing......you have to explain the 18 year pause in temperature increase....as we have more, not less, industrial activity around the world.


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 1, 2019)

cnm said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > More Proof the skeptics are WINNING!!
> ...




Yeah...no temp increases...but thanks for playing.....

More Data Fiddling—Is Another Warming “Pause” About to Start?

Yesterday Jim Hansen, now with Columbia University, and several of his colleagues released their summary of 2017 global temperatures. Their history, published by the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has constantly been evolving in ways that make the early years colder and the later years hot. I recently posted on how this can happen, and the differences between these modified datasets and those determined objectively (i.e. without human meddling).

For a couple years I have been pointing out (along with Judith Curry and others) that the latest fad—which puts a _lot_ of warming in recent data—is to extend high-latitude land weather station data far out over the Arctic Ocean. Hansen’s crew takes stations north of 64⁰ latitude and extends them an astounding 1200 kilometers into the ocean.

This, plainly speaking, is a violation of one of the most fundamental principles of thermodynamics, which is that when matter is changing its state (from, say, solid to liquid), a stirred fluid will remain at “freezing” until it is all liquid, whereupon warming will commence.

This also applies in the Arctic, where the fluid is often stirred by strong winds. So if, say, Resolute, one of the northernmost land stations, is 50⁰F, and the Arctic is mixed water-ice (it always is), that 50 degrees will be extended out 1200 kilometers where the air-sea boundary temperature has to be around 30⁰F, the freezing point of seawater up there.

Hansen et al. did pay some attention to this, noting this extension, which they normally apply to their data, was responsible for making 2017 the second-warmest year in their record. If they “only” extended 250km (still dicey), it would drop their “global” temperatures by a tenth of a degree, which would send the year down a rank. The result of all of this is that the big “spike” at the end of their record is in no small part due to the 1200km extension that turns thermodynamics on its head.

There’s another interesting pronouncement in the NASA announcement; many people have noted that the sun is a bit cool in recent years, and that it continues to trend slightly downward. The changes in its radiance are probably good for a tenth of a degree (C) of surface temperature or so. Hansen et al. use this to provide covering fire should warming stall out yet again:


----------



## Ame®icano (Jan 1, 2019)




----------



## 2aguy (Jan 1, 2019)

cnm said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > More Proof the skeptics are WINNING!!
> ...




And more...

The global climate continues to warm rapidly

IPCC admits global warming has paused

"[The IPCC] recognise the global warming ‘pause’...is real – and concede that their computer models did not predict it. But they cannot explain why world average temperatures have not shown any statistically significant increase since 1997." (David Rose)


----------



## cnm (Jan 2, 2019)

Your deniers' table ------------------>


----------



## cnm (Jan 2, 2019)

2aguy said:


> Temps aren't increasing


Yeah, right. Deniers' table -------------->





Global Temperature


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 2, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Translation ~ the alarmist can't out debate us
> ...




I would rip them apart....



Like Judith curry does.

But I would prove their data is false from the 1880 global average temperature


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 2, 2019)

cnm said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Temps aren't increasing
> ...






Fucking lie


----------



## Pilot1 (Jan 2, 2019)

We are measuring the size of a grain of sand when climate spans entire deserts.


----------



## cnm (Jan 2, 2019)

bear513 said:


> Fucking lie


I love the way you pretend you're not a denier while flat out denying. Why are you still here? Your table is that way------------------->


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 2, 2019)

cnm said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Fucking lie
> ...




How the fuck am I denying it by saying they don't have the global data?


That's called *real science


.*


----------



## cnm (Jan 2, 2019)

bear513 said:


> But I would prove their data is false from the 1880 global average temperature


Gods.

What I like is the way temperatures from the Medieval warm period are used to deny recent 'warming' as being unusual or excessive. As if daily temperatures were recorded then.






Temperature record of the past 1000 years - Wikipedia


----------



## cnm (Jan 2, 2019)

bear513 said:


> How the fuck am I denying it


By denying the scientific consensus that human activity emitted greenhouse gases are the primary driver of climate change. By denying the temperature data presented and agreed by consensus. That means you are a denier. Your table is that way-------------->


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 2, 2019)

cnm said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > How the fuck am I denying it
> ...




Because they are lying, if I trouble shooted injection moulding machine like that I would of been flipping burgers 




You need data lots of data to make a conclusion.


.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Jan 2, 2019)

Johnlaw said:


> Watching Meet the Press. They have dedicated the whole hour to climate change. They have no deniers on the panel and as Chuck Todd correctly stated the science is long since settled. Now it is time to discuss solutions.
> 
> A recent poll shows even a majority of Republicans do not dispute anthropogenic climate change.
> Opinion | More Republicans Than You Think Support Action on Climate Change
> ...


It's an issue that isn't frightening America, as intended.
The matter isn't even settled scientifically:
Is the science settled?
There is no consensus as to what should be done or if anything can be done short of a regression to an 18th century 
life style. So yeah, Chuck Todd says let's just stop discussing the matter and declare the debate over. 

That isn't doing anyone any good.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Jan 2, 2019)

Olde Europe said:


> One side debating facts, and another farting or making otherwise vulgar, ignorant noises, is not diversity, and excluding the farters isn't "bias". It's just common sense, and a necessary precondition for a real debate.


A "real" debate where the side you don't like is just ignored and excluded? Why do I think this is scientific laziness, intellectual cowardice and more fascist zealotry from the left.

The ignorance of this position proves that when the left is faced with a problem they simply declare themselves the winners and try to push aside any dissenting opinions. It's idiocy and you see what happened in France when Macron tried to shove massive taxes down the throats of the citizenry all in the name of global warming.


Good luck with getting your agenda implemented.


----------



## cnm (Jan 2, 2019)

bear513 said:


> Because they are lying


You said you would prove their data false. Go ahead and fucking prove it, denier. 

Or go to your table, it's that way------------------>


----------



## cnm (Jan 2, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> There is no consensus as to what should be done or if anything can be done short of a regression to an 18th century
> life style.


Because US rightards won't accept AGW exists or is a problem, how can they be expected to agree on a solution?


----------



## cnm (Jan 2, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> Why do I think this is scientific laziness, intellectual cowardice and more fascist zealotry from the left.


Most likely because you are a denier. Are you? 

Do you accept the scientific consensus that human activity emitted greenhouse gases are the primary driver of climate change?


----------



## The Purge (Jan 2, 2019)




----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 2, 2019)

cnm said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > But I would prove their data is false from the 1880 global average temperature
> ...




So now you finally get it????


Good for you, now you are acting like a real scientist


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Jan 2, 2019)

cnm said:


> Because US rightards won't accept AGW is a problem, how can they be expected to agree on a solution?


You can't even say with certainty to what degree AGW is a problem and no one certainly has come upon a solution that isn't worse than the problem itself (which again, is uncertain).

So who are the real "tards" here?


----------



## The Purge (Jan 2, 2019)




----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Jan 2, 2019)

cnm said:


> Most likely because you are a denier. Are you?
> 
> Do you accept the scientific consensus that human activity emitted greenhouse gases are the primary driver of climate change?


I don't deny the premise. I do deny and doubt everything that comes after that. We can't say with any certainty to what degree the earth is imperiled and even more importantly, if AGW is true we can't say what can be done about it aside from going back to a pre industrial revolution lifestyle.


----------



## cnm (Jan 2, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > Most likely because you are a denier. Are you?
> ...


So, you accept it?


----------



## cnm (Jan 2, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> You can't even say with certainty to what degree AGW is a problem


If it quacks like a denier...but in any case, I have the impression the end state of greenhouse warming might be Venus. Would that be a problem?

Further, this thread is about possible solutions. Got any?


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Jan 2, 2019)

cnm said:


> If it quacks like a denier...but in any case, I have the impression the end state of greenhouse warming might be Venus. Would that be a problem?


No. Your impressions make no difference to me.


cnm said:


> Further, this thread is about possible solutions. Got any?


Yes. Stop the blatant politicization of global warming.. Nothing good can happen until the left stops using this issue as a Trojan Horse for socialism.
I would respect and see this as a bright sign if one single leftist admitted the issue has been hijacked to achieve socialized redistribution of wealth from the West to the third world.


----------



## Ame®icano (Jan 2, 2019)

cnm said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Temps aren't increasing
> ...



After all the cooked data, exposed emails, and disastrous Michael Mann hockey stick lie why anyone believes these global warming nuts is beyond me.

Those graphs/reconstructions started being used in the '90s just as green companies started to become a thing. Climate change, as is popularly presented, is a load of horse shit pushed by companies who stand to make a lot of money and their mouthpieces who also stand to make a lot of money from pushing it. In addition of course it's also standard anti-American bullshit since the people who go on about climate change always focus on the United States and never the real polluters: China, India and the rest of SE Asia.

It’s all rooted in a deep hatred for capitalism and business. Notice the number one target for hate is big oil. Nothing has bothered leftists more than a company that makes money hand over fist extracting commodities in a developing country, and said commodity gives free man the ability to drive cross-country cheaply, commute an hour to work, and more importantly, live far away from liberal shitholes and not be beholden to their little fiefdom of public transit, high taxes, gib crime and control.


----------



## cnm (Jan 2, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> I would respect and see this as a bright sign if one single leftist admitted the issue has been hijacked to achieve socialized redistribution of wealth from the West to the third world.


What a denier load---------------------->


----------



## cnm (Jan 2, 2019)

Ame®icano said:


> After all the cooked data, exposed emails, and disastrous Michael Mann hockey stick lie why anyone believes these global warming nuts is beyond me.


Deniers that way----------------------->


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 2, 2019)

Johnlaw said:


> Watching Meet the Press.  They have dedicated the whole hour to climate change.  They have no deniers on the panel and as Chuck Todd correctly stated the science is long since settled.  Now it is time to discuss  solutions.
> 
> A recent poll shows even a majority of Republicans do not dispute anthropogenic climate change.
> Opinion | More Republicans Than You Think Support Action on Climate Change
> ...



* They have no deniers on the panel and as Chuck Todd correctly stated the science is long since settled. *

Exactly!

75/77 proves it.

*Now it is time to discuss  solutions.*

Mexicans emit much less CO2 per capita than Americans..
Every illegal alien we boot helps to save the planet.


----------



## Ame®icano (Jan 2, 2019)

cnm said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> > After all the cooked data, exposed emails, and disastrous Michael Mann hockey stick lie why anyone believes these global warming nuts is beyond me.
> ...



What exactly am I denying?


----------



## Crick (Jan 2, 2019)

Anthropogenic global warming despite its near universal acceptance by the world's climate scientists.


----------



## Slyhunter (Jan 2, 2019)

Solution; lock up all the communist global warming alarmists.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 2, 2019)

Crick said:


> Anthropogenic global warming despite its near universal acceptance by the world's climate scientists.



Problem is, the scientists have still not made a strong enough case to the public....which is the ONLY thing that matters in the real world. If "the science" does not transcend beyond the field, its but a little factoid like lithium on the periodic table. I mean, what a snoozefest.

The public has been well aware of the scientific consensus on AGW for 15 years at least...but the public could not possibly be yawning any wider. You are too much into banner gazing s0n.....most folks are waaaaaaaay too busy to care.


----------



## sparky (Jan 2, 2019)

Crick said:


> Anthropogenic global warming despite its near universal acceptance by the world's climate scientists.


Problem is , the sceintists have still not a strong enough *bank account* to present their case to the public....which is the ONLY thing that matters in the real world

~S~


----------



## Ame®icano (Jan 2, 2019)

Crick said:


> Anthropogenic global warming despite its near universal acceptance by the world's climate scientists.



*global warming*

*Don't Tell Anyone, But We Just Had Two Years Of Record-Breaking Global Cooling*

*Sorry Global Warming Alarmists, The Earth Is Cooling

Greenland Ice Cap Sees 2nd Year Of Above Average Growth
*
You lefties need much more evidence that giving trillion of dollars in carbon credits to billionaires will save the planet. The truth is, leftist hysteria will end when the money dries up.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 2, 2019)

Ame®icano said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > Anthropogenic global warming despite its near universal acceptance by the world's climate scientists.
> ...




Lol......


----------



## cnm (Jan 2, 2019)

Ame®icano said:


> *Sorry Global Warming Alarmists, The Earth Is Cooling*


 _Peter Ferrara __ Contributor  I cover public policy, particularly concerning economics.
May 31, 2012, 03:26pm_​
Deniers that way---------------------->


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 3, 2019)

cnm said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> > *Sorry Global Warming Alarmists, The Earth Is Cooling*
> ...



s0n.....hate to break it to you but clearly, a majority of the public are deniers!!

How do we know?

Because in the past 12 years, congress hasn't enacted dick to fight climate change. Nobody is calling their representative.........because nobody cares.

You have the political IQ of a small soap dish.

Doy


----------



## Ame®icano (Jan 3, 2019)

cnm said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> > *Sorry Global Warming Alarmists, The Earth Is Cooling*
> ...



It was truth back in 2012, and its still truth today. 

So, what about the other two articles you conveniently omitted?

And do you really think that calling us "deniers" gives you some power over us?


----------



## Crick (Jan 3, 2019)

It points out the fact that you are rejecting the conclusions of the vast majority of scientists on this issue.  It is akin to "flat-earther" or "911 conspiracy nut" or "chem-trails whack jobs".  It points out that you believe what no rational person ought to believe.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 3, 2019)

Most people in the world dont give a wit about what the vast majority of scientists think. It's a veritable hobby s0n....for guys with few real responsibilities in life.

Gun grabbers are everywhere screaming out their pronouncements but it never adds up to dick in the real world. People like David Hogg.....a symbol only. The 2nd Amendment has never enjoyed greater popularity than it has now. Gun sales off the hook since 2013.

 Its banner gazing.....just like the alarmists. Always banner gazing.

But feel free to take bows while skeptics win on everything....climate change action is non-existent.


----------



## Crick (Jan 3, 2019)

Crick said:


> It points out the fact that you are rejecting the conclusions of the vast majority of scientists on this issue.  It is akin to "flat-earther" or "911 conspiracy nut" or "chem-trails whack jobs".  It points out that you believe what no rational person ought to believe.




I never had any faith that humanity would act sufficiently to stave off global warming.  It was far too much to ask.  Remember that line from 'Men in Black'?  A _person_ is smart. _People_ are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals, and you know it!

And boy, are there some of those people around here.


----------



## Ame®icano (Jan 3, 2019)

Crick said:


> It points out the fact that you are rejecting the conclusions of the vast majority of scientists on this issue.  It is akin to "flat-earther" or "911 conspiracy nut" or "chem-trails whack jobs".  It points out that you believe what no rational person ought to believe.



According to "vast majority of scientists" you're referring to, we should be under hundred feet of water several times in the past thirty years or so, we would not have Eastern or Western coast and the rest of the country would have tropical climate, right?

Scientists have a track record of making catastrophic predictions for the near future that don't come true and everyone just pretends it didn't happen. Every time they "adjust" their computer models and re-cook the data and make more similar and catastrophic predictions whose sole purpose is to just get them more funding.

Since none of their predictions came true, they change the game, new predictions are based on what will happen in a 100 or more years if we don't do something now, knowing that none of us will be alive to laugh in their face when it doesn't happen again. With their computer models they cant accurately predict what will be in 10 years, why should we trust to their 100 year predictions? If their models are so precise and correct, why don't they take that data collected in the past 50 or 100 years and predict what climate we should have now? Nah, that's not proper way to do it, data is to complex and inconsistent, right?

The earth's climate is an immensely complex system. What's more, there is no control model analyzing the effects of a specific variable on a massive system without a control model is borderline pseudoscience. The more certain someone sounds when they tell you how it'll change in 50 years the less you should trust them.

Say it’s real for argument’s sake. The people proposing solutions directly contradict themselves with their stances on migration: "Inviting millions upon millions of third worlders with virtually no carbon footprints into first world countries so that they can all have massive first world sized carbon footprints like the ones we’re being told to reduce and giving them and their litters or children access to first world medical care so the global population can further explode when we’ve been told it’s already overcrowded."

Explain it. Explain how you reconcile that shit?


----------



## Crick (Jan 3, 2019)

Sorry dude, but you obviously haven't a CLUE what scientists have actually been saying about global warming for the last few decades.  So it's probably not a great idea to try to make it up in front of an audience that, for the most part, does.


----------



## Ame®icano (Jan 3, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> * They have no deniers on the panel and as Chuck Todd correctly stated the science is long since settled. *
> 
> Exactly!
> 
> ...



Settled science. Let's see how is settled...

In 2009, American Geophysical Union (AGU) sent an online survey to 10,257 earth scientists asking the following two questions:


When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remain relatively constant?
Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

Of the about 3000 scientists who responded, 82% answered "yes" to the second question.
Of those 3000 scientists who responded, only 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals were considered in AGUs survey statistics.

That means that "98% of all scientists" referred to 75 of those 77 handpicked who answered "yes".

10,257 asked > some 3000 replied > 77 fit AGUs criteria > 75 agreed = 98% of ???

Consensus my ass.


----------



## Crick (Jan 3, 2019)

Oh my.  Are you really that uninformed?

I haven't had to go here in some time, but I guess you're new here.

From Wikipedia Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia

 "no national or international scientific body rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change"

"James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[141] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[142] His 2015 paper on the topic, covering 24,210 articles published by 69,406 authors during 2013 and 2014 found only five articles by four authors rejecting anthropogenic global warming. Over 99.99% of climate scientists did not reject AGW in their peer-reviewed research.[143]




Peer-reviewed studies of the consensus on anthropogenic global warming.
In his latest paper, Powell reported that using rejection as the criterion of consensus, five surveys of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015, including several of those above, combine to 54,195 articles with an average consensus of 99.94%.[144]

Replication studies have shown that the 2% of climate science papers that rejected the scientific consensus on climate change in 2016 were methodologically flawed.[145]"

[141]Plait, P. (11 December 2012). "Why Climate Change Denial Is Just Hot Air". _Slate_. Retrieved 14 February 2014.
_[142]_*^* Plait, P. (14 January 2014). "The Very, Very Thin Wedge of Denial". _Slate_. Retrieved 14 February 2014.
_[143]_*^* Powell, James Lawrence (1 October 2015). "Climate Scientists Virtually Unanimous Anthropogenic Global Warming Is True". _Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society_. *35* (5–6): 121–124. doi:10.1177/0270467616634958. ISSN 0270-4676.
_[144]_*^* Powell, James Lawrence (2017-05-24). "The Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming Matters". _Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society_. *36* (3): 157–163. doi:10.1177/0270467617707079.
_[145]_*^* Benestad, Rasmus E.; Nuccitelli, Dana; Lewandowsky, Stephan; Hayhoe, Katharine; Hygen, Hans Olav; Dorland, Rob van; Cook, John (1 November 2016). "Learning from mistakes in climate research". _Theoretical and Applied Climatology_. *126* (3–4): 699–703. Bibcode:2016ThApC.126..699B. doi:10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5.


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 3, 2019)

cnm said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > How the fuck am I denying it
> ...


we need new Cities in more optimal locations.


----------



## Ame®icano (Jan 3, 2019)

Crick said:


> Oh my.  Are you really that uninformed?
> 
> I haven't had to go here in some time, but I guess you're new here.
> 
> ...



Sure, everyone who doesn't agree with your dogma is uninformed.

Than you cite Wikipedia as a proof of you being informed.   

By the way, have you experienced your climate grief yet?

*'Climate grief': The growing emotional toll of climate change*


----------



## Crick (Jan 3, 2019)

No, YOU are uninformed. You demonstrated it quite clearly with your previous post.

I cited Wikipedia than posted the actual references to those comments.  If you'd like to claim they're bogus, let me know.  I can bring up the original citations

Dickwad


----------



## Slyhunter (Jan 3, 2019)

Crick said:


> No, YOU are uninformed. You demonstrated it quite clearly with your previous post.
> 
> I cited Wikipedia than posted the actual references to those comments.  If you'd like to claim they're bogus, let me know.  I can bring up the original citations
> 
> Dickwad


Wikipedia is an editable source, not reliable.


----------



## Crick (Jan 3, 2019)

The references I provided are NOT editable and ARE reliable.


----------



## Slyhunter (Jan 3, 2019)

Crick said:


> The references I provided are NOT editable and ARE reliable.


I believe wikipedia is a editable source but even if it wasn't it's also a left wing biased web site.


----------



## Crick (Jan 3, 2019)

Don't be a fucking idiot.  The four references I posted all footnoted to the text are NOT editable.  They are the sources of or support the statements made.  Your objections are bullshit.  If you think something I have posted is false, show us.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 3, 2019)

Crick said:


> Oh my.  Are you really that uninformed?
> 
> I haven't had to go here in some time, but I guess you're new here.
> 
> ...



Opinion:  a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.


----------



## Slyhunter (Jan 3, 2019)

Crick said:


> Don't be a fucking idiot.  The four references I posted all footnoted to the text are NOT editable.  They are the sources of or support the statements made.  Your objections are bullshit.  If you think something I have posted is false, show us.


It's a Liberal web site, got nothing to prove. Liberals lie.


----------



## toobfreak (Jan 3, 2019)

Johnlaw said:


> Watching Meet the Press.  They have dedicated the whole hour to climate change.  They have no deniers on the panel and as Chuck Todd correctly stated the science is long since settled.  Now it is time to discuss solutions. I applaud Meet the Press. Time to push deniers and their pseudo science to the curb or back into closet.



Right, Jerkslaw.  You found a TV show that tells you what you want to believe, they have barred any dissenting opinions from speaking there presenting alternate ideas or data, operate from the position that their theories alone are wholly right and undeniable and now you applaud them as the defacto standard for hard science reporting.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 3, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> Johnlaw said:
> 
> 
> > Watching Meet the Press.  They have dedicated the whole hour to climate change.  They have no deniers on the panel and as Chuck Todd correctly stated the science is long since settled.  Now it is time to discuss solutions. I applaud Meet the Press. Time to push deniers and their pseudo science to the curb or back into closet.
> ...



Lol....check the ratings in that episode of MEET THE DEPRESSED .....about 150 people tuned in!


----------



## westwall (Jan 3, 2019)

Crick said:


> The references I provided are NOT editable and ARE reliable.







Virtually nothing you post is reliable.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 3, 2019)

cnm said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > But I would prove their data is false from the 1880 global average temperature
> ...



Medieval Warm Period - Google My Maps

Visit the map...every red ballon represents a study that found the MWP to have been warmer than the present...every blue balloon finds that it was slightly cooler than the present during the MWP..click on the balloon and you will get the basics of the study and a link to the entire study...Your map doesn't jibe with literally hundreds of studies that found the MWP to have been both warmer than the present, and global in nature.


----------



## Crick (Jan 3, 2019)

What do you believe the MWP temperatures mean to the AGW theory?


----------



## Ame®icano (Jan 4, 2019)

Crick said:


> The references I provided are NOT editable and ARE reliable.



Yeah, references to Slate. Wait... to Slate? LOL Great references, shitstain.

It figures, the average global warming believer will accept anything they hear from the left wing propaganda.

Here is little reminder... scientists like to talk about their GCMs (General Circulation Models). According to those scientists, the doubling of preindustrial CO2, absent any feedbacks, would result in a maximum forcing of +1.2C, depending on a GCM used.

The General Circulation Models, and the IPCC, predict 2-8C of warming because AGW theory assumes a positive H2O feedback. They assume that if CO2 causes a little warming, the atmosphere will hold more water vapor and that more water vapor will lead to a lot of warming.

The warming predictions cover such a large range because everyone assumes a different average H2O feedback rate. *Every GCM based on this assumption has failed to model temperatures for the past 20 years. They are all trending too high. *Every single one.

In the late 1990's the modelers themselves stated that "if they missed their predictions for more then a decade that would falsify AGW theory." Have they done that? Nope, they doubled down.

In fact, they're still not providing any data to suggest a +H2O feedback either now or in Earth's past.

If there is no +H2O feedback then we literally have nothing to worry about. Of course, all that is hidden from average leftist global warming believer, as long these nuts don't know the fact, there will be more funding.

Politicians, citizens, activists, surprisingly even a lot of scientists are not just ignoring it, but hiding these theories and the math. In their mind it's simply "CO2 = bad" and "experts say we're warming faster then ever.


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 4, 2019)

Slyhunter said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > No, YOU are uninformed. You demonstrated it quite clearly with your previous post.
> ...


Wikipedia is usually easy enough for the right wing to read and understand.


----------



## westwall (Jan 4, 2019)

danielpalos said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...









That seems to be more of a requirement for you lefty's.  Simple, and moronic, and if you don't like what it says edit it to conform to your personal beliefs.  Pretty much describes you to a "T".


----------



## SSDD (Jan 4, 2019)

Crick said:


> What do you believe the MWP temperatures mean to the AGW theory?



For one all those research projects lay to rest that bullshit hockey stick...and the idea that today's climate is somehow unusual or unprecedented...


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jan 4, 2019)

Johnlaw said:


> Watching Meet the Press.  They have dedicated the whole hour to climate change.  They have no deniers on the panel and as Chuck Todd correctly stated the science is long since settled.  Now it is time to discuss  solutions.
> 
> A recent poll shows even a majority of Republicans do not dispute anthropogenic climate change.
> Opinion | More Republicans Than You Think Support Action on Climate Change
> ...



From post one is this hilarious statement:

" They have no deniers on the panel and as Chuck Todd correctly stated the science is long since settled."

Anyone who says the science is settled is an idiot and ignorant on how science research runs in the real world.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jan 4, 2019)

Where is that broiling red "hotspot"? 

Been waiting for it to show up using Satellite data, but golly gee whiz it always manage to hide on us, even warmists/alarmists never answer that question with real Satellite data, they use bogus explanations that are stupid as hell, but warmists/alarmists like stupid as hell bogus rationalizations in their desperate attempt to keep their AGW delusion alive a bit longer until they reach socialist orgasm!

Here is what really looks like that utterly destroys the "hot spot" baloney the IPCC created years ago:






"The three diagrams above (using data from HadAT and HadCRUT4) show the linear trend of the temperature change since 1979 between 20oN and 20oS to be ca. 0.00089oC/month at the surface, 0.00095oC/month at 300 hPa, and -0.00009oC/month at 200 hPa, corresponding to 0.10698, 0.11414 and -0.01022oC/decade, respectively (see bar chart above). 

Thus, these radiosonde and surface meteorological data from the Equatorial region do not at the moment display the signature of enhanced greenhouse warming. With the observed warming rate of about 0.10698oC/decade at the surface, a warming rate of about 0.21-0.31oC/decade would have been expected at the 200 and 300 hPa levels to comply with the prognosis on this derived from the CO2 hypothesis."

LINK


----------



## SSDD (Jan 4, 2019)

Sunsettommy said:


> From post one is this hilarious statement:
> 
> " They have no deniers on the panel and as Chuck Todd correctly stated the science is long since settled."
> 
> Anyone who says the science is settled is an idiot and ignorant on how science research runs in the real world.



This is what settled science looks like....

s - d / t  speed = distance / time

v = d / t  velocity - displacement / time

a = (vf - vi) / t or delta v / t   acceleration is equal to (final v - initial v) / time (m/s2)

g = 10 m /s2  Gravity = 10 m/s2  (acceleration of a free falling object)

f = ms    force = mass * acceleration

Run the experiments a million times and the results will always be the same...every f'ing time...run 10 climate models and you will get 10 results...they not only don't agree with observations, they don't even agree with each other....

The only thing that is settled is the fact that it is pseudoscience....if the science were settled, then there would be a greenhouse effect law...and you would still have skeptics...


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jan 4, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > From post one is this hilarious statement:
> ...



They are too stupid to realize that their published 100+ modeling runs are ALL different in their results, which means it isn't credible. Can't decide which one is the "correct" one therefore accept them all!


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 4, 2019)

Olde Europe said:


> That should be easy enough to answer. The U.S. military, in studies conducted by the Pentagon, did in fact deem AGW a security threat, and, even more, AGW was deemed a "threat multiplier".


They also deem cooling as a national security threat as starvation and death will tear the nation apart...  So is it also a problem?


----------



## Ame®icano (Jan 5, 2019)

Good reading material: *The Coral Bleaching Debate
*
Oceans are fundamental ecosystem stabilizer, and the strong bleaching events seem to have a negative impact on the rest of the ecosystem. It's good to know this has a lot more to do with things that seem less apocalyptic, but it doesn't change the reality that we need the reefs to not be bleaching to be in a good place.  However, it doesn't appear to be any more bleaching than average. The environutz wont admit that bleaching is a natural part of a reef's process, and reefs are way stronger and more adaptable than we give it credit for, and bleaching is not really synonymous with destruction of the environment, though warm temperatures do seem to be synonymous with strong reef growth.


----------



## Ame®icano (Jan 5, 2019)

Sunsettommy said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Sunsettommy said:
> ...



Occasionally they reject few reports due to a typo or wrong punctuation.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 5, 2019)

Ame®icano said:


> Good reading material: *The Coral Bleaching Debate
> *
> Oceans are fundamental ecosystem stabilizer, and the strong bleaching events seem to have a negative impact on the rest of the ecosystem. It's good to know this has a lot more to do with things that seem less apocalyptic, but it doesn't change the reality that we need the reefs to not be bleaching to be in a good place.  However, it doesn't appear to be any more bleaching than average. The environutz wont admit that bleaching is a natural part of a reef's process, and reefs are way stronger and more adaptable than we give it credit for, and bleaching is not really synonymous with destruction of the environment, though warm temperatures do seem to be synonymous with strong reef growth.




Lol....nobody cares about the bleaching of the coral. Public disinterest in sea level rise could not possibly be more pronounced so coral bleaching.....well....


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 5, 2019)

westwall said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Slyhunter said:
> ...


the right wing is worse.  they make stuff up all the time.  There is no general warfare clause nor any common offense clause.


----------



## Ame®icano (Jan 5, 2019)

danielpalos said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


What exactly "general warfare clause" or anything you posted have to do with this topic?

Stop spamming every thread with your communist bullshit.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 5, 2019)

Sunsettommy said:


> Where is that broiling red "hotspot"?
> 
> Been waiting for it to show up using Satellite data, but golly gee whiz it always manage to hide on us, even warmists/alarmists never answer that question with real Satellite data, they use bogus explanations that are stupid as hell, but warmists/alarmists like stupid as hell bogus rationalizations in their desperate attempt to keep their AGW delusion alive a bit longer until they reach socialist orgasm!
> 
> ...










I think Dr Evans hit the mark in his explanation of the IPCC/AGW hypothesis  failure.

The Skeptic's Case | David M.W. Evans


----------



## Crick (Jan 5, 2019)

You make a common mistake Billy Boy.  The IPCC conducts NO research.  It assesses research conducted by others.  The tropospheric hotspot was not the creation of the IPCC.  And I have to wonder why you choose to argue with model outputs presented in the First Assessment Report, when the Fifth was released over four years ago and the Sixth is in production.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 5, 2019)

danielpalos said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...



100% right s0n. We dont dabble in a world of perpetual theory like the left does 100% of the time. Liberalism is a mental disorder and thank God only about 22% of the country thinks that way or it would be full-on Cowboys and Lefties by now!


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 5, 2019)

Crick said:


> You make a common mistake Billy Boy.  The IPCC conducts NO research.  It assesses research conducted by others.  The tropospheric hotspot was not the creation of the IPCC.  And I have to wonder why you choose to argue with model outputs presented in the First Assessment Report, when the Fifth was released over four years ago and the Sixth is in production.



Dang s0n.....talk about faulty thinking. Nobody thinks like you....what you said in that post. Holy fuck. Haven't you ever stopped to recognize that you are the only regular in this forum for years that is a climate crusader? You just cant see how others assess your presentation of ideas....the whole "IPCC only assesses....".....narrative. Very few see the world in your terms s0n. It's not your fault, of course......comes with the territory with ocd thinking.....I can spot it 1,000 miles away because it is what I do for the past 34 years!


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 5, 2019)

Crick said:


> You make a common mistake Billy Boy.  The IPCC conducts NO research.  It assesses research conducted by others.  The tropospheric hotspot was not the creation of the IPCC.  And I have to wonder why you choose to argue with model outputs presented in the First Assessment Report, when the Fifth was released over four years ago and the Sixth is in production.


Appeal to your authorities....  That's all you got...  How can I respond to this level of stupid?

Geeky Definition of *Appeal* to *Authority* *Fallacy*: The *Appeal* to *Authority* *Fallacy* is an error in reasoning which occurs when someone adopts a position because that position is affirmed by a person they believe to be an *authority*.
*What Is Appeal to Authority Fallacy? (Cognitive Fallacy)*


*I can back up my position with empirically observed facts and cognitive thought process.  Something Crick is incapable of doing.*


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 5, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> So the deniers are all still stuck here , on an anonymous message board, soothing each other. Good. This where you belong.


Geeky Definition of *Appeal* to *Authority* *Fallacy*: The *Appeal* to *Authority* *Fallacy* is an error in reasoning which occurs when someone adopts a position because that position is affirmed by a person they believe to be an *authority*.
*What Is Appeal to Authority Fallacy? (Cognitive Fallacy)*


*Have you any facts to share or are you being obtuse and continuing in your fantasy world where dissension is not allowed?*


----------



## westwall (Jan 5, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> So the deniers are all still stuck here , on an anonymous message board, soothing each other. Good. This where you belong.








Soothing?  No...we're laughing at you clowns.  It appears you hysterical cry baby's are the ones who need the soothing.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 5, 2019)

westwall said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > So the deniers are all still stuck here , on an anonymous message board, soothing each other. Good. This where you belong.
> ...


He probably record that circle jerk in the OP and has it on endless loop reaffirming his fantasy world..


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 5, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > So the deniers are all still stuck here , on an anonymous message board, soothing each other. Good. This where you belong.
> ...


Of course I can find the facts to share. The global scientific community did not come to an overwhelming consensus without a compelling mountain of mutually supportive evidence. Your implications to the contrary are embarrassingly stupid.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 5, 2019)

westwall said:


> Soothing? No...we're laughing at you clowns.


Yes, and that is how you idiots soothe each other. You huddle together on anonymous internet sites and point and cackle from the safety of your little bubble. Because, as we both know, you would all be laughed out of the room in the company of serious, educated people.

So, here you are...soothing each other. Where you belong. There are no longer any seats at the table for you people, sorry.


----------



## westwall (Jan 5, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...










First off it ain't the global scientific community, it is a small subset known as climatologists.  The only thing they have going for them is they are pushing a fraud that just happens to help the rich get richer, and the politicians get more power.  So, they get all of the press.  But the rest of the scientific community is holding our noses and the excrement they peddle.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 5, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



Too Funny:

Your too ignorant of the science to even make the argument...  Idiot!


----------



## westwall (Jan 5, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Soothing? No...we're laughing at you clowns.
> ...







What's funny is you can't even point to a single experiment to support your silly claims.  All you can do is point like the monkey you are and go "oooh oooooh oooooh!"


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 5, 2019)

westwall said:


> First off it ain't the global scientific community, it is a small subset known as climatologists.


First off, that's false denier fantasy, as every major scientific body in the world across every field of physical science endorses the scientific consensus on climate change. So no, you just pulled that out of your ass.




westwall said:


> The only thing they have going for them is they are pushing a fraud


Haha, this is such an embarrassingly stupid conspiracy theory. You should feel embarrassed of yourself for saying  it at all, much less believing it. And the real money is behind climate science denial, but those liars just can't seem to manage to make the science say what they want it to say. So, instead, they focus their efforts on sowing doubt and lies about the science. And, naturally, these efforts are focused most on our country, which is why there are so many denier fools here.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 5, 2019)

westwall said:


> What's funny is you can't even point to a single experiment to support your silly claims


Of course I can. Any child with Google can. Haha, you just repeated the stupid lie that scientists managed to come to overwhelming consensus without evidence. And that is why you morons are here, crying on each others' shoulders, instead of producing science or being invited to any serious discussion about the science.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 5, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > What's funny is you can't even point to a single experiment to support your silly claims
> ...


LOL

Google is an aggregator..  All it can do is show you products.. NOw be a good lad and get some facts that you understand and can articulate...  Stop the OOOH  AHA  Aha and monkey finger pointing..


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 5, 2019)

New Cities in more optimal locations!


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jan 5, 2019)

Crick said:


> You make a common mistake Billy Boy.  The IPCC conducts NO research.  It assesses research conducted by others.  The tropospheric hotspot was not the creation of the IPCC.  And I have to wonder why you choose to argue with model outputs presented in the First Assessment Report, when the Fifth was released over four years ago and the Sixth is in production.



Another mendacious post from you the standard bearer of dishonest claims, no one here says the IPCC conducts research, NO ONE!

The IPCC reports have undue influence on many people because they use the METANALYSIS way to create a case for the AGW propaganda. Since their reports are based on published material peer reviewed or not, it is indeed credible to say that the IPCC does advocate the "hot spot" projection by SHOWING IT in their report, as shown recently by Billy Bob:







I showed you the actual sections of the IPCC report before that was specifically projecting a "hot spot" to show up, they showed that it was *GREENHOUSE GASES* that makes the "hot spot",  don't continue your stupid attempt to whitewash the IPCC's role in this since they are the ones PROJECTING THE IDEA TO THE PUBLIC!!!

At post 557, which you didn't challenge, showed that Satellite data does not support the concept as played out in the 2007 IPCC report, it is a miserable failure which is why you are now playing your stupid IPCC didn't say it rationalization. No one here will be impressed at your childish attempt to sweep that inconvenience away.

They still project a "hot spot" up there BECAUSE they have no choice, as it is a central plank of the AGW conjecture for the never seen Positive Feedback Loop to show up from, it is a MILLSTONE around you warmists necks who has to live this epic fail down. Without it there wouldn't be a basis for the Positive Feedback Loop at all since that is where it was supposed to start from.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 5, 2019)

God bless the clueless


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 5, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Soothing? No...we're laughing at you clowns.
> ...



Lol....we'll see when we get finished playing Cowboys and Lefties s0n!!

In the meantime, we'll take the stupid/denier tag all day. Only matters who's winning!


----------



## SSDD (Jan 5, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



And yet...you can't bring a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...nor can you bring forward a single published paper in which the hypothetical warming caused by our activities has been empirically measured, quantified and ascribed to so called greenhouse gasses...not a single one...

And yet, you are bleating about all the evidence which supposedly created the consensus...where are they hiding it?  And don't give me any crap about you just not wanting to bring it here...there is nothing you guys would love more than to shove the evidence I keep asking for right down my throat to shut me up...


----------



## boedicca (Jan 5, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...




If the Proggies were actually honest about their views on separation of church and state, AGW would be recognized as a secular religion.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 5, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > What's funny is you can't even point to a single experiment to support your silly claims
> ...



And yet, you don't...and why?  Because your claims that you can are nothing but bullshit...empty, impotent claims that you can't back up because no evidence exists with which to back them up...

At least you are bright enough to not show us what passes for evidence in that weak little mind of yours...the humiliation would be great...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 5, 2019)

boedicca said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



It has already been called a religion in a court of law...some twerp was weeping over people making fun of his belief in AGW so he took it to court and the court agreed with him that it was a religion...


----------



## Crick (Jan 5, 2019)

Link if you please, because unless you've got something pretty damned convincing, I've got to call BULLSHIT on this one.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 5, 2019)

Crick said:


> Link if you please, because unless you've got something pretty damned convincing, I've got to call BULLSHIT on this one.



Unlike you skid mark...I don't make claims that I can't back up...

https://web.law.columbia.edu/sites/...assessment_of_non_u.s._climate_litigation.pdf

The only UK case addressing climate change rights was an employment law case in which the court found that belief in climate change is a legally protected right. In Grainger v. Nicholson, Mr. Nicholson filed an employment discrimination claim alleging that he was terminated from Grainger PLC, a British-based residential property business, due to his belief in catastrophic climate change.101 *The plaintiff argued that his belief in climate change was covered under the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations of 2003 because his belief affected most aspects of his life,* including how he traveled, what he bought and ate, and how he disposed of his waste.102

Beliefs on climate like religion, court rules

Mr Nicholson successfully argued that his moral values about the environment should be recognised under the same laws that protect religious beliefs.

In the landmark ruling, Justice Michael Burton said that a belief in man-made climate change is capable, if genuinely held, of being a philosophical belief for the purpose of the religion and belief regulations.


----------



## Crick (Jan 5, 2019)

RE believe in AGW is a religion

From link #1

"A United Kingdom (UK) employment tribunal found that that belief in climate change is a legally protected right.11 The employment tribunal found that an employee’s belief in climate change was covered under the employment regulations, reasoning that a belief is not excluded from coverage just because it is political or based on science rather than religion."

This states citizens have a legally protected right to a belief even if it is based on politics or science, not just religion.  This clearly (to those who can read simple text) that belief in AGW is NOT a religion.  Nowhere in this text file does it suggest otherwise.

The second link is simply a MSM article covering the same court case.  The poster seems to have allowed himself to be fooled because the right under discussion was one for "religion and belief".  He assumes, I suppose, that they are one and the same.

A belief in AGW and a concern about global warming has not been declared by any court on the planet to be a religious belief.  As usual, SSDD is full of shit.


----------



## westwall (Jan 5, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > What's funny is you can't even point to a single experiment to support your silly claims
> ...








Then do it, child.


----------



## Crick (Jan 5, 2019)

westwall said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



www.ipcc.ch

The Physical Science Basis


----------



## westwall (Jan 5, 2019)

Crick said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...








That is called opinion, junior.  Here's a thought.  Learn the difference between opinion and scientific studies and get back to us when you actually know something.


----------



## Crick (Jan 5, 2019)

westwall said:


> Crick said:
> 
> 
> > www.ipcc.ch
> ...



I've posted a list of the published scientific studies on which TWO of "The Physical Science Basis"s 15 chapters are based and was corrected by the moderators here for posting too much quoted material.  If you actually want to insist it is not based on scientific studies then you appear to have no qualm demonstrably lying to our faces.  Is that the case Mr Westwall?


----------



## westwall (Jan 5, 2019)

Crick said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...









No, you posted studies that were based on MODELS!  Models aren't data, fool.  Once again, learn what data is!


----------



## flacaltenn (Jan 6, 2019)

Johnlaw said:


> Watching Meet the Press.  They have dedicated the whole hour to climate change.  They have no deniers on the panel and as Chuck Todd correctly stated the science is long since settled.  Now it is time to discuss  solutions.
> 
> A recent poll shows even a majority of Republicans do not dispute anthropogenic climate change.
> Opinion | More Republicans Than You Think Support Action on Climate Change
> ...



A SCIENCE discussion that EXCLUDES dissent?  Do realize what a snowflake concept that is? 

And fuck the poll unless you produce the EXACT QUESTION asked.  Global warming can not be resolved or defined down to JUST ONE QUESTION.  There's at least dozens of them. If the question is ---

"Is the planet warming and does man-made CO2 play a role in that warming"?  There will be a fairly large consensus..  But that gives NO CLUE what the predicted MAGNITUDE of the problem will be..  Or whether the modeling is even GOOD ENOUGH to make those predictions.. 

In fact, fuck Repubs and Dems. In the most EXHAUSTIVE polling OF climate scientists and BY climate scientists (Bray and von Storch 2012 thru 2017) --  the VAST MAJORITY thought the media and political leadership was poorly representing the actual science.  And only 21% had strong agreement that the modeling that predictions depend on accurately depict the climate.. 

THERE"S what REAL climate scientists think about MSNBC and their "safe space" for producing a public narrative based on "consensus".. 

Open it up to debate, and you'll see a much more accurate and GREATLY less hysterical version of what the science ACTUALLY Says TODAY..  Not the catastrophic predictions from the 80s and 90s that now in disrepute.


----------



## cnm (Jan 6, 2019)

skookerasbil said:


> s0n.....hate to break it to you but clearly, a majority of the public are deniers!!


The American public, possibly. They're not the brightest, given.


----------



## cnm (Jan 6, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Your map doesn't jibe with literally hundreds of studies that found the MWP to have been both warmer than the present, and global in nature.


I look forward to your links.


----------



## cnm (Jan 6, 2019)

Ame®icano said:


> It was truth back in 2012, and its still truth today.


Bullshit. It is debunked denier propaganda by a denier mouthpiece. I'm not trawling through your other links to make your specious argument for you. Excerpt the relevant bits if you think them applicable.


----------



## cnm (Jan 6, 2019)

Oops, there goes the neighbourhood. I'm out of here.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 6, 2019)

cnm said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Your map doesn't jibe with literally hundreds of studies that found the MWP to have been both warmer than the present, and global in nature.
> ...



Already provided them....Post # 550...and I explained exactly how the map works.

Visit the map...every red ballon represents a study that found the MWP to have been warmer than the present...every blue balloon finds that it was slightly cooler than the present during the MWP..click on the balloon and you will get the basics of the study and a link to the entire study..

There are links to over 1000 studies there...as you can see, the MWP was both warmer than the present and global in nature...

Which part of clicking on a balloon to get information regarding the study is confusing you?  Here is the link again...

Medieval Warm Period - Google My Maps


----------



## SSDD (Jan 6, 2019)

Crick said:


> A belief in AGW and a concern about global warming has not been declared by any court on the planet to be a religious belief.  As usual, SSDD is full of shit.



Classic crick...ignore what the judge said, and go with your interpretation....

Judge rules activist's beliefs on climate change akin to religion

"A belief in man-made climate change, and the alleged resulting moral imperatives, is capable if genuinely held, of being a philosophical belief for the purpose of the 2003 Religion and Belief Regulations."

Climate change belief given same legal status as religion

 "a belief in man-made climate change ... is capable, if genuinely held, of being a philosophical belief for the purpose of the 2003 Religion and Belief Regulations".

And on and on and on...Tell me skid mark....what is it like to have me constantly handing you your ass?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 6, 2019)

westwall said:


> That is called opinion, junior.  Here's a thought.  Learn the difference between opinion and scientific studies and get back to us when you actually know something.



Back to his inability to differentiate between data and evidence...he believes that if you hang an assumption on enough data, that somehow it magically becomes evidence.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 6, 2019)

Crick said:


> RE believe in AGW is a religion
> 
> From link #1
> 
> ...



Oy

*N
O
B
O
D
Y

C
A
R
E
S



Lol...on social media, Tinder receives more attention than climate change!

No One Cares About Climate Change - Social Media Engagement Study*

*I nearly split my sides laughing seeing the graph in the link.*


----------



## Ame®icano (Jan 6, 2019)

cnm said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> > It was truth back in 2012, and its still truth today.
> ...



Look who's denier now...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 6, 2019)

Ame®icano said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > Ame®icano said:
> ...



They can't be exposing themselves to anything that might challenge their faith...they don't think on their own...someone gives them their opinions...if they see information that challenges their faith, they don't have the slightest idea of how to evaluate it...if it isn't part of the opinion that was given to them...they are lost..


----------



## flacaltenn (Jan 6, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



I've asked a half dozen times before WHAT IS THE QUESTION that there is consensus on -- and you can't walk that path.  Because in reality, you only get "consensus" ONE SPECIFIC question at a time. And like any complex, multi-disciplinary science -- CChange needs a couple DOZEN questions and consensus to be settled science. THAT -- has never happened..


----------



## flacaltenn (Jan 6, 2019)

Crick said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Crick said:
> ...



15 chapter huh? What was the prediction for GMASTemp in 2100? OR the sea level anomaly? Those wild ass projections have ALL been whittled down to fractions of what they once were.  Caused the world to shit its britches all over primitive modeling and "wishful thinking"... 

How come we're not getting UPDATES on the latest "projections"?  How come the IPCC has all but shut down? How come the "critical fudge factor" Climate Sensitivity continues to decline. 

You THINK -- the science is static. It has NOT been static. And all the atrociously irresponsible "signaling of doom" have DISAPPEARED for almost an entire decade..  But YOU -- are still aboard the crazy train as it WAS about 10 or 20 years ago... Move on...


----------



## flacaltenn (Jan 6, 2019)

*Can't have EVERY thread de-railed because one member doesn't understand the difference between heat transfer and radiative transfer.  From now on -- it's a thread diversion unless that's the title. And warnings go out to whomever brings it up.. 

If you have no idea what I just said -- You're in a better place.. Just enjoy the peace..  
*


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 6, 2019)

New Cities in more optimal locations.  We can command as many jobs be created as we need.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 6, 2019)

SSDD said:


> And yet...you can't bring a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...


Of course I can. Any child with Google can. See, saying ridiculous shit like this is why deniers are just not allowed at the table anymore. The deniers embarrass themselves and waste the time of educated people. So, the deniers are now left to start their own fringe websites that are just laughed off for their craziness.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 6, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> I've asked a half dozen times before WHAT IS THE QUESTION that there is consensus on -- and you can't walk that path


Of course I can, and i have answered it many times. Any child with Google can answer that question. There is literally a periodic convention of the global scientific community that , among other things, determines the very answer to that question and makes it public. If you don't know the answer, that is your fault and nobody else's. And this nonsense is precisely why deniers are not taken seriously and are no longer invited to the table with serious, educated people.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jan 6, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And yet...you can't bring a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...
> ...


Correct.

It’s the same as not having ‘creationism’ on a site dedicated to science.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 6, 2019)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Correct.
> 
> It’s the same as not having ‘creationism’ on a site dedicated to science.


Exactly. And we don't invite flat earthers to speak geology conventions, either. But the deniers are free to go have their own little meetings. They can invite creationists and flat earthers, to boost attendance. Maybe feature some anti vaxxers and anti fluoriders as well.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 6, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Correct.
> ...



My God.....is this guy not the pre imminent matrix sucker on the whole board? If it's the official narrative, he's all in. Ghey.

I could understand it but when the level of lOsE is so profound, it becomes fascinating on some level. Just zero curiosity in the thinking.....ever......

The term "flat earthers" historically was associated with indisputable fact. In 2019, it is associated to a social dogma only. Amazing shit.....

How do we know?

The social dogma is rooted in words only.....no behavior. All the flat eather/denier rants for the past 20 years has led to how much climate action?

*ZERO*

*EGG*

*ZILCH*

*FAIL*

**


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 6, 2019)

@www.whosnotwinning.com


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 6, 2019)

skookerasbil said:


> The term "flat earthers" historically was associated with indisputable fact. In 2019, it is associated to a social dogma only.


Wromg. There really are people who think the earth is flat. Just as there really are fools who deny evolution and clinate theories. And none of them are invited to serious discussions abou these tolocs any longer. Which is great.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jan 6, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > I've asked a half dozen times before WHAT IS THE QUESTION that there is consensus on -- and you can't walk that path
> ...



Sure Wiz.. Just spit it out. What "every climate scientist agrees on"..  As THO, they are as Borg-like droidal beings as rabid party partisans.. 

We're all breathlessly awaiting "the Enlightenment" here. Make it quick..


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 6, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > The term "flat earthers" historically was associated with indisputable fact. In 2019, it is associated to a social dogma only.
> ...



Hmmmm

Hey I'll take the flat earther label all day 

But so far, the entire world has responded to climate science as theory only.....which is evidenced by the continued utter domination of fossil fuels on the energy landscape. Meanwhile, renewables are laughable and fringe......still. Because the science isnt mattering for dick.

Theory is ghey

AGW bozos are like the guys here on Long Island rolling around in their shiny $125,000 GTR's and pull into their driveways in front of a 2 bedroom bungalow on a 10th of an acre of property and that looks like a crack house!


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 6, 2019)

Bah Bah Booey.......

Inconvenient energy fact: It takes 79 solar workers to produce same amount of electric power as one coal worker - AEI


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 6, 2019)

Who exactly are the "flat earthers"??

4 in 5 Consumers Think Eco-Friendly Products Cost More "Green"

Lol.....nobody wants to buy green shit!!


----------



## SSDD (Jan 7, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And yet...you can't bring a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...
> ...



Of course you can't...all you can do is make impotent claims rather than step up to the plate and do it...you offer up one logical fallacy after another and call it a defense of your position...what a laugh...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 7, 2019)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Oh..look...another impotent spewer of logical fallacy...another mouthpiece who has no informed opinion of his own...another dupe who only has the opinion someone with a political agenda gave to him...

Hang around not producing the first piece of observed, measured evidence to support your beliefs...it makes us skeptics look good..we keep asking for evidence, you wack job puppets keep not delivering and spewing impotent insults....and piss poor analogies...I love it...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 7, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


Don't hold your breath...he has no idea, but whoever gave him his opinion, told him that all scientists agree...that is as far as his knowledge goes.


----------



## westwall (Jan 7, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > I've asked a half dozen times before WHAT IS THE QUESTION that there is consensus on -- and you can't walk that path
> ...








If  you could you wouldn't be fleeing behind the "just google it" canard.  Here's a suggestion, YOU google it and present what you find.  

GO!


----------



## SSDD (Jan 8, 2019)

westwall said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



He wouldn't even know where to start...by his own admission, the entire topic is out of his intellectual grasp...he just comes here to express the opinion someone with a political agenda gave him...nothing more.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 8, 2019)

Crepitus said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> > Olde Europe said:
> ...


not at all, but don't let facts blind your dumb ass.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 8, 2019)

harmonica said:


> Crepitus said:
> 
> 
> > harmonica said:
> ...


if it has?  I still haven't seen surfers in the Arctic.  why not?


----------



## mamooth (Jan 8, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> Sure Wiz.. Just spit it out. What "every climate scientist agrees on"..  As THO, they are as Borg-like droidal beings as rabid party partisans..
> 
> We're all breathlessly awaiting "the Enlightenment" here. Make it quick..



Flat-earthers and scientologists use the same "no, you're the cultists!" and "Ha, you have to debunk my propaganda for the thousandth time again, or I win!" schtick that you deniers here use so often. That's why everyone laughs at them as well.

You and your pals here get all the science wrong, hence reality defines you as the cultists. The actual science has spun dirt in your face and then moved on down the road, and you're not even visible in the rear-view mirror. You're only interesting in a political and psychological way. If it gives you all emotional comfort to believe otherwise, fine, but it doesn't affect the science.


----------



## westwall (Jan 8, 2019)

mamooth said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Sure Wiz.. Just spit it out. What "every climate scientist agrees on"..  As THO, they are as Borg-like droidal beings as rabid party partisans..
> ...








Wrong, we actually follow the scientific method which demands that if YOU make an extraordinary claim, it is up to YOU to present evidence to support your claim.  Computer model generated "studies" are not support.  They are fiction because they are not data.  An ignorant anti science religious nut job, like you though, chooses to ignore those facts.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jan 8, 2019)

mamooth said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Sure Wiz.. Just spit it out. What "every climate scientist agrees on"..  As THO, they are as Borg-like droidal beings as rabid party partisans..
> ...



Please tell us all what QUESTION is this scientific "consensus" is on..  And how many questions YOU think need answered before you play on the fears of the public. 

Oh wait !! you can't. All you can do is flame??  Well, bless your little heart (and your tiny brain)...


----------



## mamooth (Jan 8, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> Please tell us all what QUESTION is this scientific "consensus" is on..



Whether the earth is warming, the degree of it, and whether humans are the cause. That's all quite settled. Come on, this isn't rocket science. So why the tapdancing?

And no, you don't get to move the goalposts now, though you will try, as a desperation tactic.



> And how many questions YOU think need answered before you play on the fears of the public



I'm not the one pushing stories of socialist conspiracy, so you're plainly projecting your own penchant for trying to induce hysteria.



> Oh wait !! you can't. All you can do is flame??



Says the guy who does nothing but flame. I understand why. It's not like you're capable of discussing the issues.


----------



## mamooth (Jan 8, 2019)

westwall said:


> Wrong, we actually follow the scientific method which demands that if YOU make an extraordinary claim, it is up to YOU to present evidence to support your claim.



But our claim isn't extraordinary, and it is backed up by all the evidence.

In contrast, your extraordinary claim about a secret socialist global plot to fake the data is backed up by nothing. We have the hard science, and you have conspiracy theories.



> Computer model generated "studies" are not support.



That's nice, but irrelevant, as all the directly observed hard data supports AGW theory. The stunning success of the models is just icing on the cake.



> They are fiction because they are not data.  An ignorant anti science religious nut job, like you though, chooses to ignore those facts.



Our side has been right about nearly everything for over 40 years running. Your side has failed spectacularly at everything over the same period. The rational side has credibility because they've earned it. Your side has no credibility because you always fail. You can't change that by complaining about how unfair the scientific method is, and then invoking a conspiracy theory. The only way you can change it is to start doing science that doesn't fail.


----------



## westwall (Jan 8, 2019)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Wrong, we actually follow the scientific method which demands that if YOU make an extraordinary claim, it is up to YOU to present evidence to support your claim.
> ...







Your claim that mankinds contribution of less than 5% to the global CO2 budget is responsible for controlling the temperature of the plane is indeed an extraordinary claim.  And it is not born out by observation, nor by legit scientific studies that track the paleo climate that the globe has enjoyed.  In every case, when real observed DATA is compared vs your computer generated fiction, your fiction ALWAYS loses.  

That is called a fact.  You are a propagandist and nothing more.


----------



## JLW (Jan 8, 2019)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Wrong, we actually follow the scientific method which demands that if YOU make an extraordinary claim, it is up to YOU to present evidence to support your claim.
> ...



Right in every respect.


----------



## mamooth (Jan 8, 2019)

westwall said:


> Your claim that mankinds contribution of less than 5% to the global CO2 budget is responsible for controlling the temperature of the plane is indeed an extraordinary claim.



Being that you fail completely at understanding how an equilibrium system works, let me help you out.

If I make $1000 a week and spend $1000 a week, my bank account of $5000 is constant.

If I make $1050 a week and spend $1000, it's only a change of 5% in income, but my bank account rises $2600 that year, a 52% increase.

According to your very peculiar logic, it's an "extraordinary claim" to attribute that 52% rise in my bank account to a mere 5% rise in income. And that's why you shouldn't be bothering the grownups. You always fail at the most basic logic.



> And it is not born out by observation, nor by legit scientific studies that track the paleo climate that the globe has enjoyed.



It's impossible to explain paleoclimate without AGW theory. In contrast, your crank pseudoscience can't explain it. If you disagree, then explain, without invoking greenhouse gases, how earth came out of the snowball earth period.



> In every case, when real observed DATA is compared vs your computer generated fiction, your fiction ALWAYS loses.



Being how I'm familiar with the real science, I know with 100% certainty that you're lying, in exactly the same way I know with 100% certainty that flat-earthers and creationists are lying. You can fool the other authoritarian-followers in your cult, but you can't fool intelligent and informed people.


----------



## westwall (Jan 8, 2019)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Your claim that mankinds contribution of less than 5% to the global CO2 budget is responsible for controlling the temperature of the plane is indeed an extraordinary claim.
> ...









The RT of CO2 is less than 15 years.  Your claim is hogwash.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jan 8, 2019)

Johnlaw said:


> Watching Meet the Press.  They have dedicated the whole hour to climate change.  They have no deniers on the panel and as Chuck Todd correctly stated the science is long since settled.  Now it is time to discuss  solutions.
> 
> A recent poll shows even a majority of Republicans do not dispute anthropogenic climate change.
> Opinion | More Republicans Than You Think Support Action on Climate Change
> ...



Go for it.

When you come to "push" you better bring some muscle.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jan 8, 2019)

Olde Europe said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > So you applaud bias and non diversity.  Got it.
> ...



So when do the pro AGW followers stop farting ?


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jan 8, 2019)

Johnlaw said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > So you applaud bias and non diversity.  Got it.
> ...



You'll continue to get nowhere with your stupid left wing attitude. 

There is no doubt the climate is changing.  There is doubt man has done much to affect it or could do much to change it.  Still worth "discussing", but not with the "it's settled" crowd.  They can shove it.

There is also no doubt that being a wise steward of the earth is very practical.  I've heard very little about what people agree on in this regard, even though I know they agree on a great deal.

That is except for you extremists on the left.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jan 8, 2019)

mamooth said:


> Being how I'm familiar with the real science, I know with 100% certainty that you're lying, in exactly the same way I know with 100% certainty that flat-earthers and creationists are lying. You can fool the other authoritarian-followers in your cult, but you can't fool intelligent and informed people.



What do you know about real science ?

Please share.  

I ask the same thing of deanrd and he has yet to respond.  He's willing to yell at people for being deniers but he does not know a BTU from his BUTT.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jan 8, 2019)

Crick said:


> Link if you please, because unless you've got something pretty damned convincing, I've got to call BULLSHIT on this one.



Of course you do....even though you have no refutation.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jan 8, 2019)

cnm said:


> Oops, there goes the neighbourhood. I'm out of here.



Yep....don't  trip on your tail as it is stuck between your legs.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jan 8, 2019)

danielpalos said:


> New Cities in more optimal locations.  We can command as many jobs be created as we need.



Please go to Mexico and start one.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jan 8, 2019)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



What have you contributed in the way of science ?

Answer: => ZERO


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jan 8, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > I've asked a half dozen times before WHAT IS THE QUESTION that there is consensus on -- and you can't walk that path
> ...



flacaltenn is ten times better in the sciences than you could ever hope to be.

Please don't make such stupid claims without first understanding your standing as one of the bullshit brothers only strengthens when you do.


----------



## JBvM (Jan 8, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> Sure Wiz.. Just spit it out. What "every climate scientist agrees on"..  As THO, they are as Borg-like droidal beings as rabid party partisans..
> 
> We're all breathlessly awaiting "the Enlightenment" here. Make it quick..


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

Do you distrust NASA?

*Scientific consensus: Earth's climate is warming *

*AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES*
*Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations*
"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)2








American Association for the Advancement of Science
"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)3





American Chemical Society
"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)4





American Geophysical Union
"Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5





American Medical Association
"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)6





American Meteorological Society
"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)7





American Physical Society
"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)8





The Geological Society of America
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)9
*SCIENCE ACADEMIES*
*International academies: Joint statement*
"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)10







U.S. National Academy of Sciences
"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." (2005)11
*U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES*






U.S. Global Change Research Program
"The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Human 'fingerprints' also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and Arctic sea ice." (2009, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)12
*INTERGOVERNMENTAL BODIES*




Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.”13


----------



## Oddball (Jan 8, 2019)

Science isn't up for a political majoritarian vote, fool.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jan 8, 2019)

JBvM said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Sure Wiz.. Just spit it out. What "every climate scientist agrees on"..  As THO, they are as Borg-like droidal beings as rabid party partisans..
> ...



NONE of those professional societies ever polled their members. It's a front office political act to write statements like those. My professional org has one.. Never contacted a single member for an opinion.
Furthermore, most all of those statements are old and stale. Published BEFORE all the various projections and predictions started to dramatically fail in the early 2000s.

  And the IPCC???  LOL... Go read their "mission statement".. They don't study anything. They hire cherry-picked opinion, and 2/3 of the panel is not science at all. They are socio -- econ -- political.. 

Furthermore -- I agree with statements like 


> "Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)6



But the pant crapping "Earth is dying" CATASTROPHIC predictions are never gonna materialize. It was all greatly over-hyped and premature. *At 0.14DegC per decade as measured by the satellites for the past 35 years is it FAR from being a pressing societal or public policy emergency... *

And by the time you spend $20 trillion on sacrificing virgins into volcanoes, the technology will have advanced past any difficulties with finding CO2 free power..


----------



## flacaltenn (Jan 8, 2019)

JBvM said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Sure Wiz.. Just spit it out. What "every climate scientist agrees on"..  As THO, they are as Borg-like droidal beings as rabid party partisans..
> ...



Interesting story.. ONE professional org had the balls to solicit opinion from their scientist members. And it turned into an ugly rugby match for the Aussie Geological Society. They had a full fledged member REVOLT trying to revise their "Climate Change Statement".. They finally decided not to revise the original one they posted about 2004...

*Nocookies

AUSTRALIA’S peak body of earth scientists has declared itself unable to publish a position statement on climate change due to the deep divisions within its membership on the issue.

After more than five years of debate and two false starts, Geological Society of Australia president Laurie Hutton said a statement on climate change was too difficult to achieve.

Mr Hutton said the issue “had the potential to be too divisive and would not serve the best interests of the society as a whole.”

The backdown, published in the GSA quarterly newsletter, is the culmination of two rejected position statements and years of furious correspondence among members. Some members believe the failure to make a strong statement on climate change is an embarrassment that puts Australian earth scientists at odds with their international peers.

It undermines the often cited stance that there is near unanimity among climate scientists on the issue.

GSA represents more than 2000 Australian earth scientists from academe, industry, government and research organisations.
*
Dayum.. Don't dare ask your members what the organization position on Global Warming should be. You need to keep those projects to the 4 ACTIVIST volunteers who agree to write it..


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jan 9, 2019)

JBvM said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Sure Wiz.. Just spit it out. What "every climate scientist agrees on"..  As THO, they are as Borg-like droidal beings as rabid party partisans..
> ...



"Scientific consensus: Earth's climate is warming"

Oh really, gee I didn't know that, but of course no one here is disputing that it has been warming, thus your opening line falls flat. I don't need a "consensus" to know that.

"*Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations*
"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)"

No such rigorous scientific research exist for the simple reason that all those unverified *climate model's* to year 2100 are untestable/unfalsifiable, thus junk. The Scientific Method *REQUIRES* that a hypothesis be testable in real time, not far into the future guesses on something not well understood. The fact that YOU fell for this Consensus fallacy means you lack critical thinking skills to know that you just made a fool of yourself here.

Statements like this one below is pure garbage and stupid since they are WRONG!

"The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases..."

Those "gases" don't trap heat at all since they don't absorb heat, they absorb light energy waves.

Need I go on.....?


----------



## JBvM (Jan 9, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> JBvM said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


 always attacking any international group - it's a sure trigger with you people

I know you criticize NASA. They sent a man to the man and brought him back (multiple times). 

I'll side with NASA scientists over you - even if the rumors are true that you were in line for an appointment to a committee of the Trump Admin: Committee to Keep Americans Safe from Science


----------



## JBvM (Jan 9, 2019)

Sunsettommy said:


> "Scientific consensus: Earth's climate is warming"
> 
> Oh really, gee I didn't know that, but of course no one here is disputing that it has been warming, thus your opening line falls flat. I don't need a "consensus" to know that.
> 
> ...




yet people here at usmb have denied the planet is warming. and then some have claimed it's not a big deal.

I know this might sound pretty powerful and intelligent to your ears "_The Scientific Method *REQUIRES*_" - but I'll listen to actual well-respected and accomplished scientists
 on this subject.

You like the sound of your own voice having make believe arguments with leading scientists. I wonder how well you'd sound in front of an audience of scientists?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 9, 2019)

JBvM said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Sure Wiz.. Just spit it out. What "every climate scientist agrees on"..  As THO, they are as Borg-like droidal beings as rabid party partisans..
> ...




And for all of that appeal to authority...
*
1. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.

2. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of infrared radiation by a gas and warming in the atmosphere.

3. The hypothesized warming due to mankind's burning of hydrocarbon fuels, which is the foundation of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis has never been empirically measured, quantified, and then attributed to so called green house gasses.
*
Since there is no actual observed, measured evidence to support the consensus, exactly what is that consensus built upon?  I can think of only two things that will bring natural born skeptics together...an overwhelming body of undeniable evidence, or a very large bucket full of money...

Since any overwhelming body of undeniable evidence would easily provide enough actual observed, measured evidence to completely crush the 3 statements above.....and there isn't any observed, measured evidence to even begin challenging them....it must be money.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 9, 2019)

JBvM said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > JBvM said:
> ...



'Actually skeptics criticize any group that makes claims that aren't supported by observed, measured evidence..


----------



## SSDD (Jan 9, 2019)

JBvM said:


> yet people here at usmb have denied the planet is warming. and then some have claimed it's not a big deal.



What precisely is the ideal temperature for life on planet earth?  If you can't answer that, then you have no idea whether it is a big deal or not...we do know that most of the past 10,000 years, has been warmer than the present...and we know that civilization rose during a warmer time than the present.



JBvM said:


> know this might sound pretty powerful and intelligent to your ears "_The Scientific Method *REQUIRES*_" - but I'll listen to actual well-respected and accomplished scientists
> on this subject.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## JBvM (Jan 9, 2019)

SSDD said:


> And for all of that appeal to authority...
> *
> 1. There is not a single piece of observed, measured evidence which supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability.
> 
> ...



This is not a debate where a mention of an 'appeal to authority' scores points, or works  to challenge an argument.

If you want to claim you know better than experts in a filed, go right ahead. Most people seek out expert advice and most people haven't the time, patience, or mindset to think they can out and debunk the scientific community because they've read a few things on a handful of websites


----------



## JBvM (Jan 9, 2019)

SSDD said:


> 'Actually skeptics criticize any group that makes claims that aren't supported by observed, measured evidence..


I believe you may be confusing cynics, and misanthropes with skeptics. Would you keep an open mind and consider that a possibility?

I have followed what some call professional skeptics, and few if any argue against the scientific community's consensus on the climate science data


----------



## JBvM (Jan 9, 2019)

SSDD said:


> [
> 
> What precisely is the ideal temperature for life on planet earth?  If you can't answer that, then you have no idea whether it is a big deal or not...we do know that most of the past 10,000 years, has been warmer than the present...and we know that civilization rose during a warmer time than the present.



There are lots of things I don't know much about, but that I trust the experts on. I do due diligence. I look into an expert's credentials and experience/work. As I've been saying on this message board -- I trust NASA over people like you because NASA sent men to the moon and brought them back.  The experts at NASA had to form a consensus on how they believed the science could be used, but they could never be 100% certain. 

You appear to set up straw men and unrealistic goals. It does appear that way. I would love to see you give a lecture to a crowd of scientists trained in specialized fields that deal with the temperatures of planets and more. I believe you would flop around like a fish out of water. And that is not to denigrate your attempts at portraying what little you know as being expertise.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 9, 2019)

JBvM said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And for all of that appeal to authority...
> ...



The three statements above are straight forward, no nonsense challenges to the "evidence" in support of man made clime change....if such evidence existed...it would be quite easy to produce...in fact, us skeptics could't possibly avoid it...and yet, neither you, nor all of climate science can produce the first scrap of actual evidence to challenge any of the 3 statements above.


----------



## MisterBeale (Jan 9, 2019)

Johnlaw said:


> Watching Meet the Press.  They have dedicated the whole hour to climate change.  They have no deniers on the panel and as Chuck Todd correctly stated the science is long since settled.  Now it is time to discuss  solutions.
> 
> A recent poll shows even a majority of Republicans do not dispute anthropogenic climate change.
> Opinion | More Republicans Than You Think Support Action on Climate Change
> ...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 9, 2019)

JBvM said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > 'Actually skeptics criticize any group that makes claims that aren't supported by observed, measured evidence..
> ...



Nope...I know precisely the difference....maybe you don't...  Here, let me help.

skeptic - a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.

cynic - a person who believes that only selfishness motivates human actions and who disbelieves in or minimizesselfless acts or disinterested points of view.

misanthrope - a hater of humankind.

Actually, only someone who is quite dense would confuse either of those for a skeptic...glad to help...maybe you will actually learn something today.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 9, 2019)

JBvM said:


> There are lots of things I don't know much about, but that I trust the experts on.



So you have no informed opinion of your own...you are just telling us the opinion that someone gave you...someone with a political agenda...

Tell me, do you have any idea how often the "consensus" has been wrong on any given scientific topic through out history...including the present?  Any idea at all?

Are you aware that the consensus has been wrong so often, that the odds are stacked very heavily in your favor that you will be right, even if you know nothing about the subject simply by taking he opposite side of the consensus?


----------



## JBvM (Jan 9, 2019)

SSDD said:


> JBvM said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


Evidence is not always 'quite easy to produce'  - go ask the folks over at the collider in France 

always seeking simple and easy answers? 

NASA and others present evidence. Some people just seem to be against recognizing facts


----------



## JBvM (Jan 9, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Actually, only someone who is quite dense would confuse either of those for a skeptic...glad to help...maybe you will actually learn something today.


and the evidence is that much of human kind is dense.

Claiming you are a skeptic, and not something else is not proof you are

can you produce irrefutable evidence that you are a skeptic and not something else? It should be easy, as you keep insisting evidence is always easy to produce

consider this:


----------



## JBvM (Jan 9, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Are you aware that the consensus has been wrong so often...


Did anyone tell the scientific community? This is huge news


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 9, 2019)

JBvM said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Are you aware that the consensus has been wrong so often...
> ...



Where is there any evidence that anybody is caring about the scientific community?

Provide links please!

You're like the meathead who spikes the football after a touchdown making the score 54-6 not in your favor.

Ghey


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jan 9, 2019)

JBvM said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > JBvM said:
> ...



No, you stupid chump.

He's pointing out that your post is bullshit.  

Just try complaining about what your org has posted as a "position" and find out how long you last.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jan 9, 2019)

JBvM said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > And for all of that appeal to authority...
> ...



You just appealed to NASA.  

Hypocrite.

And they won't even back you.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jan 9, 2019)

JBvM said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > "Scientific consensus: Earth's climate is warming"
> ...



Accomplished ?

At what ?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 9, 2019)

JBvM said:


> Evidence is not always 'quite easy to produce'  - go ask the folks over at the collider in France
> 
> always seeking simple and easy answers?



Climate science says that the science is settled..in order to actually settle science, an overwhelming body of observed, measured evidence must exist....or a very large sum of money..  Clearly, there is no overwhelming body of observed measured evidence...



JBvM said:


> NASA and others present evidence. Some people just seem to be against recognizing facts



There seems to be a general misunderstanding among alarmists as to the difference between data...and evidence...here....let me help.

Evidence - that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

Data -  individual facts, statistics, or items of information

Climate science has a great deal of data...very little of it amounts to anything other than evidence that there is a very wide margin in natural variability..


----------



## SSDD (Jan 9, 2019)

JBvM said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, only someone who is quite dense would confuse either of those for a skeptic...glad to help...maybe you will actually learn something today.
> ...



Unfortunately, that is true.  All too often placing their faith in people they perceive to be experts.....people they perceive to be far more intelligent than themselves...placing faith in "experts" because they believe the nuts and bolts of whatever topic are out of their intellectual reach.  Your observation is evident here in abundance....people like yourself who admit that they have no informed opinion of their own and are content to do nothing more than voice the opinion someone else gave you.  Yes, far too much of humanity is content to be the puppets of those they perceive to be their....for lack of a more appropriate word....betters.



JBvM said:


> Claiming you are a skeptic, and not something else is not proof you are
> 
> can you produce irrefutable evidence that you are a skeptic and not something else? It should be easy, as you keep insisting evidence is always easy to produce



It is very easy...All one need do is review my posts...literally thousands of them...were I a cynic, the major leaning of my posts would be regarding WHY climate sceintists do what they do rather than merely pointing out that they don't have evidence to support their claims....and there is nothing within my arguments that might be construed to mean that I hate humanity.

My very words are evidence of my nature and I am a skeptic...You would be hard pressed to find evidence that I am anything other than what I claim to be.  

Science is not a religion to me...Neither is politics. It is you who is expressing faith in the words of someone else...it is you who is arguing from a position of belief that they are telling you the honest truth with no other motivation possible. My position is based on a lack of evidence from the very people you put so much faith in.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 9, 2019)

JBvM said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Are you aware that the consensus has been wrong so often...
> ...



Only news to someone who has no inkling of the history of science...it is easy to find undeniable evidence that the scientific consensus has been wrong on most topics...but lets look at some very recent developments in which the scientific consensus was very wrong...they had mountains of data, but very little actual evidence to support their beliefs...they misinterpreted the data and achieved consensus, which happened to be quite wrong...  Examples:

Cholesterol - the entire scientific community was pretty sure that cholesterol caused heart disease...they recommended drugs...recommended diets...wrote papers, taught medical students, gave lectures and seminars on the "fact" that cholesterol caused heart disease...several major studies had indicated otherwise, but the consensus was sure that they were right.....Turns out that a study that was the largest of its kind ever done finally convinced the consensus that they had misinterpreted the data...there is no link between cholesterol and heart disease...a study spanning decades found that there is no statical difference in the numbers of people who die of heart disease who have "good" cholesterol numbers and the number of people who have "bad" cholesterol numbers...

Other topics in which the modern consensus has been dead wrong range from stress not being the cause of stomach ulcers, to salt not causing high blood pressure, to natural fats being bad for you but hydrogenated fats being good for you  and on and on and on and on...pick any scientific topic...research it back a bit and you will find that the consensus was at one time or another quite wrong..

Like I said, if you take the opposite side of a topic in which there is consensus, even if you don't have any knowledge on the topic, the odds are stacked heavily in your favor that you will be on the right side of the argument...the consensus has been wrong that often.  The fact that you didn't know this goes to your "faith" and "belief" in "experts" and having no informed opinion of your own.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jan 9, 2019)

JBvM said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > "Scientific consensus: Earth's climate is warming"
> ...



BTW: An audience of scientists is like any other group.  Their collective I.Q. drops when they get together and they have a herd mentality.  

I've seen it on many occasions.  They won't step out of line for fear of falling out of favor with their peers and there are certain "opinion leaders" who will go after dissidents if they don't like the direction of the conversation.  I've worked with PhD's on several projects and found many of them to be fully practiced drama queens.

I've had many conversations with scientists one-on-one and found no problem arguing with them absent the mob mentality.  Most of the time, they are quite contemplative.  Often, when they get honest, they'll admit that consensus is often submission.

But if you want to argue, I am open to the bull ring any time.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jan 9, 2019)

SSDD said:


> JBvM said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



This one really cracked me up.

It was brought up in a book entitled "Toxic Terror"...but I was aware of the load of crap it was long before the book.

Another example of science turned to crapp.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 9, 2019)

SSDD said:


> JBvM said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



Well, if that isn't proof for smart photons and magic dimmer switches, I don't know what is......


----------



## westwall (Jan 9, 2019)

JBvM said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Sure Wiz.. Just spit it out. What "every climate scientist agrees on"..  As THO, they are as Borg-like droidal beings as rabid party partisans..
> ...








Consensus is a POLITICAL TERM.  Not a scientific one.  So long as those agencies are deriving their money from the federal government by the usage of non scientific terms, then yes, anything they produce in this area is suspect.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jan 9, 2019)

JBvM said:


> I know you criticize NASA. They sent a man to the man and brought him back (multiple times).



You don't know jack shit about what I criticize... Always supported the space program to some extent. We're talking about a small cadre of people holed up in the "GISS" NASA office headed by political APPOINTEES who are RABID enviro-nauts. Like James Hansen.. The activist in a labcoat that gave CBS news the "excuse and cover" to show a graphic with our oceans BOILING and the graphic 212 degrees on top of it.. 
+IN FACT, I'm in GREAT company poking at them, since there was a letter signed about 1998 by over 20 top NASA former scientists and astronauts SIMILARLY criticizing their campaign of FEAR and purposely distorting the science of Global Warming.. Those folks you admire for GETTING us to the moon and back.
Kinda arrogant about attacking me when there's so much you DON'T know..


----------



## flacaltenn (Jan 9, 2019)

JBvM said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > 'Actually skeptics criticize any group that makes claims that aren't supported by observed, measured evidence..
> ...



You don't really grasp the science or the history of this science, and you're not understanding what consensus means as to accepting scientific theories, so maybe you should just KEEP whatever preconceived fallacies you have about a DOOMED PLANET to yourself..


----------



## JBvM (Jan 9, 2019)

JBvM said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Are you aware that the consensus has been wrong so often...
> ...






skookerasbil said:


> Where is there any evidence that anybody is caring about the scientific community?
> 
> Provide links please!
> 
> ...


The next time an Ebola scare or some other scare of a deadly infectious disease is in the news -- please, ignore the scientific community - that type of thinking just helps help nature thin the herd.

is that what you are advocating?


----------



## JBvM (Jan 9, 2019)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> JBvM said:
> 
> 
> > always attacking any international group - it's a sure trigger with you people
> ...



Well thank you for a serious insult and personal attack - name calling. It helps make my case


----------



## JBvM (Jan 9, 2019)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> You just appealed to NASA.
> 
> Hypocrite.
> 
> And they won't even back you.


It's not a debating pint. We always appeal .. as you try and twist it, when we present evidence.

NASA is more credible than 1500 of your type


----------



## JBvM (Jan 9, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Climate science has a great deal of data...very little of it amounts to anything other than evidence that there is a very wide margin in natural variability..




and you only tell half the story here. The '_very wide margin in natural variability'_ does not equal there is no man made contribution that has spiked the levels 

I side with the experts over an anonymous keyboard warrior on the www

thank you


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 9, 2019)

JBvM said:


> JBvM said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



lInKfAiL s0n


----------



## SSDD (Jan 10, 2019)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > JBvM said:
> ...



Same here...my doc tried for years to get me to start statin drugs for my cholesterol..I asked him for evidence to support his belief that it was going to cause heart disease....about a year ago he finally admitted that he had been bamboozled by the data which was not evidence...


----------



## SSDD (Jan 10, 2019)

JBvM said:


> JBvM said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...



There is evidence to support the dangers of an ebola threat...again, you don't seem to grasp the difference between what data is and what evidence is...climate science has a great deal of data...very little evidence...there is a good deal of data on ebola and nearly all of it is evidence of the danger...  This isn't that difficult and even someone who believes the science is out of his intellectual reach can get this stuff.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 10, 2019)

JBvM said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > You just appealed to NASA.
> ...



That's the thing..you don't present evidence..you present data..and when we ask exactly what that data is supposed to support, rather than say nothing in particular...you hang an assumption about what it means and call it evidence..

NASA has been caught cooking the books and fabricating data...how much credibility would you give a bank caught doing the same thing?


----------



## SSDD (Jan 10, 2019)

JBvM said:


> and you only tell half the story here. The '_very wide margin in natural variability'_ does not equal there is no man made contribution that has spiked the levels



And it doesn't mean that there is manmade climate anything...it means that if there is some manmade climate change, it is indistinguishable from natural variability...so how do you get a crisis out of that?



JBvM said:


> I side with the experts over an anonymous keyboard warrior on the www



I really don't care whether you believe me or not...the most I could hope for is that you would actually try using your own brain and do some actual digging into the literature...and learn the difference between evidence and data rather than simply being a repository for someone else's opinion.


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 10, 2019)

Climate change happens; we need new Cities in more optimum locations.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jan 10, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> JBvM said:
> 
> 
> > I know you criticize NASA. They sent a man to the man and brought him back (multiple times).
> ...



It's what they have to do when they perceive someone has a serious threat to their fairy tale.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jan 10, 2019)

JBvM said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Haven't they lost two shuttles ?

One of which was the direct result of putting profit over science.

But that NEVER happens.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 10, 2019)

danielpalos said:


> Climate change happens; we need new Cities in more optimum locations.



s0n....nobody ever even knows wtf you are saying!!


----------



## danielpalos (Jan 11, 2019)

skookerasbil said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Climate change happens; we need new Cities in more optimum locations.
> ...


not dumb enough for the right wing?


----------



## JBvM (Jan 11, 2019)

SSDD said:


> There is evidence to support the dangers of an ebola threat...


says who?

are you appealing to authority?

how can you be sure, did you go out and test any evidence?


----------



## mamooth (Jan 12, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> We're talking about a small cadre of people holed up in the "GISS" NASA office headed by political APPOINTEES who are RABID enviro-nauts.



Scientologists, flat earthers, antivaxxers and creationists also invoke TheGreatConspiracyoftheElites. It's standard cultist behavior.

This is why it's so good to be part of the reality-based community. We never have to retreat behind bizarre conspiracy theories. If reality disagrees with our politics, we change our politics to match reality. To win, we merely have to point at reality.



> Like James Hansen.. The activist in a labcoat that gave CBS news the "excuse and cover" to show a graphic with our oceans BOILING and the graphic 212 degrees on top of it.



We talk about the data, because we can. You attack people, because you can't talk about the data.



> +IN FACT, I'm in GREAT company poking at them, since there was a letter signed about 1998 by over 20 top NASA former scientists and astronauts SIMILARLY criticizing their campaign of FEAR and purposely distorting the science of Global Warming.. Those folks you admire for GETTING us to the moon and back.
> Kinda arrogant about attacking me when there's so much you DON'T know..



So exactly when did you abandon rationality in favor of cult-induced paranoia?


----------



## skookerasbil (Jan 12, 2019)

mamooth said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > We're talking about a small cadre of people holed up in the "GISS" NASA office headed by political APPOINTEES who are RABID enviro-nauts.
> ...



"Change around the politics to match the reality?"

And how's that goin' for the past 20 years s0n?





>> they need a spike the football emoticon imo <<


Mamooth likes being a pumpkin on a tee......


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 12, 2019)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> t's what they have to do when they perceive someone has a serious threat to their fairy tale


Bwahahaha....as if you bunch of uneducated slobs weeping on the internet is a serious threat or challenge to any scientific theory....


----------



## Crick (Jan 12, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> JBvM said:
> 
> 
> > I know you criticize NASA. They sent a man to the man and brought him back (multiple times).
> ...




James Hansen was NOT a political appointee.  From his Wikipedia article:

*Early life and education*
Hansen was born in Denison, Iowa, to James Ivan Hansen and Gladys Ray Hansen.[9] He was trained in physics and astronomy in the space science program of James Van Allen at the University of Iowa. He obtained a B.A. in Physics and Mathematics with highest distinction in 1963, an M.S. in Astronomy in 1965 and a Ph.D. in Physics in 1967, all three degrees from the University of Iowa. He participated in the NASA graduate traineeship from 1962 to 1966 and, at the same time, between 1965 and 1966, he was a visiting student at the Institute of Astrophysics at the University of Kyoto and in the Department of Astronomy at the University of Tokyo. He then began work at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in 1967.[10]

*Career*
After graduate school, Hansen continued his work with radiative transfer models, attempting to understand the Venusian atmosphere. He later applied and refined these models to understand the Earth's atmosphere, and in particular, the effects that aerosols and trace gases have on Earth's climate. His development and use of global climate models has contributed to the further understanding of the Earth's climate. In 2009 his first book, _Storms of My Grandchildren_, was published.[11] In 2012 he presented the TED Talk "Why I must speak out about climate change".[12]

From 1981 to 2013, he was the director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City, a part of the Goddard Space Flight Center.

As of 2014, Hansen directs the Program on Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions at Columbia University's Earth Institute.[13] The program is working to continue to "connect the dots" from advancing basic climate science to promoting public awareness to advocating policy actions.

Hansen is representing his granddaughter as well as "future generations" as plaintiffs in the _Juliana v. United States_ lawsuit, which is suing the United States government and some of its executive branch's positions for not protecting a stable climate system.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jan 12, 2019)

Crick said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > JBvM said:
> ...



Fine.. Even his former supervisor, one of those who signed the NASA condemnation of GISS practice of stoking FEAR about the climate says he was an embarrassment to NASA and should have been muzzled..


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jan 13, 2019)

mamooth said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > We're talking about a small cadre of people holed up in the "GISS" NASA office headed by political APPOINTEES who are RABID enviro-nauts.
> ...



What data and what do you know about it ?

You said you understood science......based on what ?

Are you a chemist ?  A physicist ?


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jan 13, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > t's what they have to do when they perceive someone has a serious threat to their fairy tale
> ...



Bwahahaha.....as if you had a valid scientific theory to threaten.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jan 13, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> JBvM said:
> 
> 
> > I know you criticize NASA. They sent a man to the man and brought him back (multiple times).
> ...



Being both arrogant and ignorant...is what defines the left wing.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jan 13, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > t's what they have to do when they perceive someone has a serious threat to their fairy tale
> ...



BTW: I'll put up my education against yours any day of the week.


----------



## Crick (Jan 13, 2019)

The only education you can put up here is whatever is displayed in the knowledge of your comments.  Comments such as that are a road in the wrong direction.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jan 13, 2019)

Crick said:


> The only education you can put up here is whatever is displayed in the knowledge of your comments.  Comments such as that are a road in the wrong direction.



By all means, tell us what it is that qualifies you to be the arrogant idiot you are.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jan 13, 2019)

Crick said:


> The only education you can put up here is whatever is displayed in the knowledge of your comments.  Comments such as that are a road in the wrong direction.



That's like saying water tastes like water.

Please try it again.


----------



## Indeependent (Jan 13, 2019)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Sun Devil 92 said:
> ...


Please *do* ask the *Internet* PhD about his credentials.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 14, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > t's what they have to do when they perceive someone has a serious threat to their fairy tale
> ...




The threat to the hypothesis...do learn the difference between theory and hypothesis...hell that is in the dictionary...anyway, the threat to the hypothesis is the lack of evidence to support it.


----------



## Crick (Jan 14, 2019)

"The Physical Science Basis" at www.ipcc.ch


----------



## jc456 (Jan 14, 2019)

Crick said:


> The only education you can put up here is whatever is displayed in the knowledge of your comments.  Comments such as that are a road in the wrong direction.


and what qualifies you as a judge and deciding factor?


----------



## Crick (Jan 14, 2019)

The same that qualifies you I'm afraid.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 14, 2019)

Crick said:


> The same that qualifies you I'm afraid.


so you have no scientific degree to be judge?  color me surprised.


----------



## Crick (Jan 14, 2019)

As I have stated on many occasions, I have a BSc in Ocean Engineering.  What I meant was that given our anonymity here, we all have only the qualifications we can prove via the knowledge we display in our posts.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 14, 2019)

Crick said:


> As I have stated on many occasions, I have a BSc in Ocean Engineering.  What I meant was that given our anonymity here, we all have only the qualifications we can prove via the knowledge we display in our posts.


so when is it you will be displaying the knowledge of CO2 actually warming the atmosphere?


----------



## Crick (Jan 14, 2019)

I don't believe I have to as Billy Bob, SSDD and their idol Dr William Happer, have already explained it to us.  CO2 absorbs LWIR radiated from the Earth's surface.  It then very most likely loses that energy with a collision with other molecules of the air.  That WARMS the air it collides with.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 14, 2019)

QUOTE="Crick, post: 21604281, member: 48966"]I don't believe I have to as Billy Bob, SSDD and their idol Dr William Happer, have already explained it to us.  CO2 absorbs LWIR radiated from the Earth's surface.  It then very most likely loses that energy with a collision with other molecules of the air.  That WARMS the air it collides with.[/QUOTE]
*then very most likely*

that doesn't mean it does right?  and you have no hot spot, so you still fail.  It must suck to fail every time you post something.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 14, 2019)

jc456 said:


> QUOTE="Crick, post: 21604281, member: 48966"]I don't believe I have to as Billy Bob, SSDD and their idol Dr William Happer, have already explained it to us.  CO2 absorbs LWIR radiated from the Earth's surface.  It then very most likely loses that energy with a collision with other molecules of the air.  That WARMS the air it collides with.


*then very most likely*

that doesn't mean it does right?  and you have no hot spot, so you still fail.  It must suck to fail every time you post something.[/QUOTE]

*that doesn't mean it does right? *

Warm CO2 colliding with N2 doesn't warm the N2?
Why not?


----------



## Crick (Jan 14, 2019)

It has always sucked to try to teach you anything JC.  That's why I've just given up.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 14, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > QUOTE="Crick, post: 21604281, member: 48966"]I don't believe I have to as Billy Bob, SSDD and their idol Dr William Happer, have already explained it to us.  CO2 absorbs LWIR radiated from the Earth's surface.  It then very most likely loses that energy with a collision with other molecules of the air.  That WARMS the air it collides with.
> ...



*that doesn't mean it does right? *

Warm CO2 colliding with N2 doesn't warm the N2?
Why not?[/QUOTE]
why would it?  you post evidence it does just that.  I'll wait.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 14, 2019)

Warm CO2 colliding with N2 doesn't warm the N2?
Why not?

*why would it?  you post evidence it does just that.  I'll wait.*

Why would it? Now you don't understand conduction either?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 14, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Warm CO2 colliding with N2 doesn't warm the N2?
> Why not?
> 
> *why would it?  you post evidence it does just that.  I'll wait.*
> ...


why is the CO2 warm? The CO2 absorbs IR at the temperature it is.  how does it magically warm?

When did conduction become radiation?


----------



## Crick (Jan 14, 2019)

This is why I gave up on you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 14, 2019)

jc456 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Warm CO2 colliding with N2 doesn't warm the N2?
> ...



*why is the CO2 warm? *

It absorbed IR.

*The CO2 absorbs IR at the temperature it is. *

And after it absorbs IR, it's at a higher temperature.

*how does it magically warm?*

It's not magic, it's physics

*When did conduction become radiation?*

Never.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 15, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


*It absorbed IR.*
just because it absorbs IR doesn't make it warmer.  Post a link stating such a thing.

*And after it absorbs IR, it's at a higher temperature.*
It is the temperature it absorbed it at.  Again, post the link that states CO2 becomes warmer by absorbing IR.

Oh, and one more thing, the warmer CO2 near the surface emits toward the cooler atmosphere or collides, if it collides it hands off the energy it has, no more, the CO2 emitting emits at it's temperature immediately after absorbing as long as it hasn't collided.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 15, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



*just because it absorbs IR doesn't make it warmer.*

Why not?

Do you feel matter cools when it absorbs energy?

*It is the temperature it absorbed it at.*

Please restate your claim more clearly.

*Oh, and one more thing, the warmer CO2 near the surface emits toward the cooler atmosphere *

Link?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 15, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


*Do you feel matter cools when it absorbs energy?*

you should read what I posted already.  you sure have trouble with that aspect of the board.  you don't read.  I said it absorbs at its temperature.  did I mention anything about cooling? nope.  but damn there you are insinuating I did.  that is childish and you are childish.  consistently childish.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 15, 2019)

jc456 said:


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



* you sure have trouble with that aspect of the board.*

Yes, I have trouble understanding some of your gibberish.

*I said it absorbs at its temperature. *

What absorbs what at what temperature? Be specific.

* did I mention anything about cooling? nope.*

No, but you imagine energy absorbed doesn't increase temperature.
You should publish. The insulating possibilities are endless.

*that is childish and you are childish.*

Trying to dumb it down to your level often requires using childish speech.


----------



## SSDD (Jan 15, 2019)

Crick said:


> I don't believe I have to as Billy Bob, SSDD and their idol Dr William Happer, have already explained it to us.  CO2 absorbs LWIR radiated from the Earth's surface.  It then very most likely loses that energy with a collision with other molecules of the air.  That WARMS the air it collides with.



But it does not describe the radiative greenhouse effect upon which the climate models are based...they fail because they are modeling a system that doesn't exist.


----------



## toobfreak (Jan 15, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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




FOLKS:  Basic Physics 101.  When any material absorbs a longwave IR radiation, it converts to heat.  The material takes on more energy.  The only question now is what does it do with it, when does it do it and how?


----------

