# Pay no attention to man made climate change folks



## BWK (Jul 22, 2019)

It was 84 degrees near the Arctic Ocean this weekend as carbon dioxide hit its highest level in human history  It was only 84 degrees in the Arctic this past weekend, eclipsing  record highs for the area. In known history that has never happened.  In the mean time, Trump and the rest of these oil butt boys, are contemplating drilling for oil in the Arctic. You think they give a shit? Or Republicans? Or some Democrats? Hell no. People, the wealthy are stealing resources for short term gain at the expense of the planet, our lives, and the creatures that live here.. And we enable this insanity. When does it stop? Other countries are moving forward with green energy plans, and we are not. When does the madness end?


----------



## Erinwltr (Jul 22, 2019)

Eighteen of the 19 warmest years on record for the planet have occurred since 2000, and we keep observing these highly unusual and often record-breaking high temperatures.

They won’t stop soon, but cuts to greenhouse emissions would eventually slow them down.

Thing that gets me is that we have the ability to stop this or at least drastically slow it.


----------



## martybegan (Jul 22, 2019)

BWK said:


> It was 84 degrees near the Arctic Ocean this weekend as carbon dioxide hit its highest level in human history  It was only 84 degrees in the Arctic this past weekend, eclipsing  record highs for the area. In known history that has never happened.  In the mean time, Trump and the rest of these oil butt boys, are contemplating drilling for oil in the Arctic. You think they give a shit? Or Republicans? Or some Democrats? Hell no. People, the wealthy are stealing resources for short term gain at the expense of the planet, our lives, and the creatures that live here.. And we enable this insanity. When does it stop? Other countries are moving forward with green energy plans, and we are not. When does the madness end?



There is an easy way for you to end your own carbon footprint....


----------



## martybegan (Jul 22, 2019)

Erinwltr said:


> Eighteen of the 19 warmest years on record for the planet have occurred since 2000, and we keep observing these highly unusual and often record-breaking high temperatures.
> 
> They won’t stop soon, but cuts to greenhouse emissions would eventually slow them down.
> 
> Thing that gets me is that we have the ability to stop this or at least drastically slow it.



Yes, by following the path of Watermelons everywhere, and embracing Socialism to tell us how to live our lives (while the elites keep their air-conditioning and jet travel, and the rest of us revert to the 1800's)


----------



## Erinwltr (Jul 22, 2019)

martybegan said:


> Erinwltr said:
> 
> 
> > Eighteen of the 19 warmest years on record for the planet have occurred since 2000, and we keep observing these highly unusual and often record-breaking high temperatures.
> ...


Good for you marty.  4 comments in and you manage to post a raving political diatribe carbon dioxide.


----------



## martybegan (Jul 22, 2019)

Erinwltr said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Erinwltr said:
> ...



Only thing your "WE HAZ TO DOES SOMETINGS!!!" reply warranted.


----------



## Theowl32 (Jul 22, 2019)

Spoken by stupid fucking liberals who don't do one fucking thing for the environment. 

Makes you wonder why stupid fucking liberals living on the coasts are not moving in masses away from coastal regions. They aren't. 

Why?

Hmmmm "BWK"  you "A F R I C AN" American. Go ahead and explain why that is you idiot.

Tell us all of the sacrifices you are making and have made for the sake of THE global WARMING.

Let me answer. The conservatives are racists. There, that is and always will be their answer to any question that shows how fucking stupid they all are.


----------



## BWK (Jul 22, 2019)

martybegan said:


> Erinwltr said:
> 
> 
> > Eighteen of the 19 warmest years on record for the planet have occurred since 2000, and we keep observing these highly unusual and often record-breaking high temperatures.
> ...


True wisdom spoken  from a total Trump Toad. You haven't argued shit.


----------



## BWK (Jul 22, 2019)

Theowl32 said:


> Spoken by stupid fucking liberals who don't do one fucking thing for the environment.
> 
> Makes you wonder why stupid fucking liberals living on the coasts are not moving in masses away from coastal regions. They aren't.
> 
> ...


It has nothing to do with where you live dumb fuck. It's how you live. Question answered. 

What am I doing? I'm educating dumb ass fucks like you who couldn't give a shit.


----------



## Rustic (Jul 22, 2019)

BWK said:


> It was 84 degrees near the Arctic Ocean this weekend as carbon dioxide hit its highest level in human history  It was only 84 degrees in the Arctic this past weekend, eclipsing  record highs for the area. In known history that has never happened.  In the mean time, Trump and the rest of these oil butt boys, are contemplating drilling for oil in the Arctic. You think they give a shit? Or Republicans? Or some Democrats? Hell no. People, the wealthy are stealing resources for short term gain at the expense of the planet, our lives, and the creatures that live here.. And we enable this insanity. When does it stop? Other countries are moving forward with green energy plans, and we are not. When does the madness end?


Sorry, not man made...


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jul 22, 2019)

BWK said:


> It was 84 degrees near the Arctic Ocean this weekend as carbon dioxide hit its highest level in human history  It was only 84 degrees in the Arctic this past weekend, eclipsing  record highs for the area. In known history that has never happened.  In the mean time, Trump and the rest of these oil butt boys, are contemplating drilling for oil in the Arctic. You think they give a shit? Or Republicans? Or some Democrats? Hell no. People, the wealthy are stealing resources for short term gain at the expense of the planet, our lives, and the creatures that live here.. And we enable this insanity. When does it stop? Other countries are moving forward with green energy plans, and we are not. When does the madness end?



Q.  Other countries are moving forward with green energy plans, and we are not. When does the madness end?

A.  On Jan. 20, 2021 if Trump and his ineptness is defeated and The Democrats take the Senate and keep the H. or Rep.  Only then is it possible to protect the earth, its people and all other living creatures.


----------



## BWK (Jul 22, 2019)

Wry Catcher said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> > It was 84 degrees near the Arctic Ocean this weekend as carbon dioxide hit its highest level in human history  It was only 84 degrees in the Arctic this past weekend, eclipsing  record highs for the area. In known history that has never happened.  In the mean time, Trump and the rest of these oil butt boys, are contemplating drilling for oil in the Arctic. You think they give a shit? Or Republicans? Or some Democrats? Hell no. People, the wealthy are stealing resources for short term gain at the expense of the planet, our lives, and the creatures that live here.. And we enable this insanity. When does it stop? Other countries are moving forward with green energy plans, and we are not. When does the madness end?
> ...


Thank you!


----------



## BWK (Jul 22, 2019)

Rustic said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> > It was 84 degrees near the Arctic Ocean this weekend as carbon dioxide hit its highest level in human history  It was only 84 degrees in the Arctic this past weekend, eclipsing  record highs for the area. In known history that has never happened.  In the mean time, Trump and the rest of these oil butt boys, are contemplating drilling for oil in the Arctic. You think they give a shit? Or Republicans? Or some Democrats? Hell no. People, the wealthy are stealing resources for short term gain at the expense of the planet, our lives, and the creatures that live here.. And we enable this insanity. When does it stop? Other countries are moving forward with green energy plans, and we are not. When does the madness end?
> ...


I knew sooner or later "Encyclopedia Ignoramus" would show up.


----------



## Kilroy2 (Jul 22, 2019)

martybegan said:


> Erinwltr said:
> 
> 
> > Eighteen of the 19 warmest years on record for the planet have occurred since 2000, and we keep observing these highly unusual and often record-breaking high temperatures.
> ...




But what is better to follow the all might dollar and only be concern with the balance of your checking account and ignore anything that abuse the Earth as this is the now generation and we should only be concern with ourselves. The heck with the future generation all they have to do is just deal with it.

Me Me Me me me me me me me


----------



## Rustic (Jul 22, 2019)

BWK said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > BWK said:
> ...


----------



## Darkwind (Jul 22, 2019)

Wry Catcher said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> > It was 84 degrees near the Arctic Ocean this weekend as carbon dioxide hit its highest level in human history  It was only 84 degrees in the Arctic this past weekend, eclipsing  record highs for the area. In known history that has never happened.  In the mean time, Trump and the rest of these oil butt boys, are contemplating drilling for oil in the Arctic. You think they give a shit? Or Republicans? Or some Democrats? Hell no. People, the wealthy are stealing resources for short term gain at the expense of the planet, our lives, and the creatures that live here.. And we enable this insanity. When does it stop? Other countries are moving forward with green energy plans, and we are not. When does the madness end?
> ...


Actually, the answer is:  When these other countries have put as many resources into lowering their carbon footprint to the point they match ours is when we'll DISCUSS doing more.

When the other countries don't look to take American money and resources for climate change, I'll sit up and take notice.


----------



## Rustic (Jul 22, 2019)




----------



## 007 (Jul 22, 2019)

Antarctica Warmer 1,000 Years Ago… Now, *That’s* An Inconvenient Truth!


----------



## Defiant1 (Jul 22, 2019)

BWK said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> > Spoken by stupid fucking liberals who don't do one fucking thing for the environment.
> ...




It sounds like you're failing.
But that's to be expected when you are trying to propagate lies.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 22, 2019)

BWK said:


> It was 84 degrees near the Arctic Ocean this weekend as carbon dioxide hit its highest level in human history  It was only 84 degrees in the Arctic this past weekend, eclipsing  record highs for the area. I*n known history that has never happened.*  In the mean time, Trump and the rest of these oil butt boys, are contemplating drilling for oil in the Arctic. You think they give a shit? Or Republicans? Or some Democrats? Hell no. People, the wealthy are stealing resources for short term gain at the expense of the planet, our lives, and the creatures that live here.. And we enable this insanity. When does it stop? Other countries are moving forward with green energy plans, and we are not. When does the madness end?




In known history....

Well folks here we have another 100 year old flat earther here.



you do know the earth is 4.5 billion years old right?


----------



## Flash (Jul 22, 2019)

BWK said:


> It was 84 degrees near the Arctic Ocean this weekend as carbon dioxide hit its highest level in human history  It was only 84 degrees in the Arctic this past weekend, eclipsing  record highs for the area. In known history that has never happened.  In the mean time, Trump and the rest of these oil butt boys, are contemplating drilling for oil in the Arctic. You think they give a shit? Or Republicans? Or some Democrats? Hell no. People, the wealthy are stealing resources for short term gain at the expense of the planet, our lives, and the creatures that live here.. And we enable this insanity. When does it stop? Other countries are moving forward with green energy plans, and we are not. When does the madness end?




News flash Moon Bat.  It is hot in the summer.

Where were you stupid environmental wackos when you were freezing you fat asses off with the arctic blasts last winter? It is hot in the summer and cold in the winter.  I shit you not.  Go look it up.

You Moon Bats don't know anymore about Climate Science as you do Economics, History, Ethics, Biology or the Constitution.

If you did know anything about Climate Science you would know that the earth was much cooler when the CO2 levels were more than ten times what they are now.  Even during Human times the CO2 was lower but yet the climate warmer.  AGW is a lie. A derange Moon Bat scam.  If it wasn't a lie then the Moon Bats wouldn't have to fabricate data and every once in awhile their idiotic predictions would come true instead of never. 

It is hot in the summer.  Live with it Moon Bat.  You are not going to die in 12 years like the wacko Democrat nutcases are telling you.

Crank you AC up or go swimming.  Do what most people with a brain do when it gets hot.  Setting there pounding on your computer with your stupid TDS afflicted hate of Trump isn't going to make you any cooler this summer.


----------



## BWK (Jul 22, 2019)

bear513 said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> > It was 84 degrees near the Arctic Ocean this weekend as carbon dioxide hit its highest level in human history  It was only 84 degrees in the Arctic this past weekend, eclipsing  record highs for the area. I*n known history that has never happened.*  In the mean time, Trump and the rest of these oil butt boys, are contemplating drilling for oil in the Arctic. You think they give a shit? Or Republicans? Or some Democrats? Hell no. People, the wealthy are stealing resources for short term gain at the expense of the planet, our lives, and the creatures that live here.. And we enable this insanity. When does it stop? Other countries are moving forward with green energy plans, and we are not. When does the madness end?
> ...


And where is your empirical data telling us man-made global warming was going on 4.5 billion years ago?  Sonny, this thread isn't for you. Your ignorance is already shining like new money. Let's see how much humiliation you are in for, by demonstrating to this board just how much gross ignorance you are willing to show us.


----------



## BWK (Jul 22, 2019)

Flash said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> > It was 84 degrees near the Arctic Ocean this weekend as carbon dioxide hit its highest level in human history  It was only 84 degrees in the Arctic this past weekend, eclipsing  record highs for the area. In known history that has never happened.  In the mean time, Trump and the rest of these oil butt boys, are contemplating drilling for oil in the Arctic. You think they give a shit? Or Republicans? Or some Democrats? Hell no. People, the wealthy are stealing resources for short term gain at the expense of the planet, our lives, and the creatures that live here.. And we enable this insanity. When does it stop? Other countries are moving forward with green energy plans, and we are not. When does the madness end?
> ...


"It is hot in the summer?" Folks , did you read that? I thought I misread it until I read it twice.   These Trump Toads are some of the most ignorant fools on the planet. What are we going to do with this crowd of buffoons?


----------



## BWK (Jul 22, 2019)

Kilroy2 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Erinwltr said:
> ...


That is all these self centered Dicks care about. "THE ME!"


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 22, 2019)

BWK said:


> Erinwltr said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


And yet not one single prediction by the world is ending crowd has come true.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jul 22, 2019)

Darkwind said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > BWK said:
> ...



P1:  That's not an answer, that's a press release by the fossil fuel industry.

P2:  You might choke on coal dust before you ever sit up.


----------



## BWK (Jul 22, 2019)

Darkwind said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > BWK said:
> ...


You aren't paying attention, as most Trump Toads in this country don't. They just don't give a shit.


----------



## BWK (Jul 22, 2019)

RetiredGySgt said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> > Erinwltr said:
> ...


Who is the "end of the world crowd?" Links to the people you are referring to who predicted the world should have already ended?


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jul 22, 2019)

RetiredGySgt said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> > Erinwltr said:
> ...



"And yet not one single prediction by the world is ending crowd has come true".  

Would you like the dressing on, or on the side, of this word salad?


----------



## BWK (Jul 22, 2019)

007 said:


> Antarctica Warmer 1,000 Years Ago… Now, *That’s* An Inconvenient Truth!


The thread is about the Arctic you dumb ass. Do you know the difference?


----------



## BWK (Jul 22, 2019)

Wry Catcher said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > BWK said:
> ...


----------



## justoffal (Jul 22, 2019)

BWK said:


> It was 84 degrees near the Arctic Ocean this weekend as carbon dioxide hit its highest level in human history  It was only 84 degrees in the Arctic this past weekend, eclipsing  record highs for the area. In known history that has never happened.  In the mean time, Trump and the rest of these oil butt boys, are contemplating drilling for oil in the Arctic. You think they give a shit? Or Republicans? Or some Democrats? Hell no. People, the wealthy are stealing resources for short term gain at the expense of the planet, our lives, and the creatures that live here.. And we enable this insanity. When does it stop? Other countries are moving forward with green energy plans, and we are not. When does the madness end?



Stop lying... The Arctic was once tropical

Jo


----------



## BWK (Jul 22, 2019)

Defiant1 said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> > Theowl32 said:
> ...


If it "sounded like it", then why didn't your coward ass prove it then? Because you can't. You're too intellectually and informatively bankrupt so you just pedal lies.


----------



## justoffal (Jul 22, 2019)

Erinwltr said:


> Eighteen of the 19 warmest years on record for the planet have occurred since 2000, and we keep observing these highly unusual and often record-breaking high temperatures.
> 
> They won’t stop soon, but cuts to greenhouse emissions would eventually slow them down.
> 
> Thing that gets me is that we have the ability to stop this or at least drastically slow it.



Stop with the Bullshit...

The average Temperature is low compared to several past periods.

Go away Henny Penny


Jo


----------



## justoffal (Jul 22, 2019)

BWK said:


> Defiant1 said:
> 
> 
> > BWK said:
> ...



At least it doesn't smell like the bullshit you pedal.

Jo


----------



## BWK (Jul 22, 2019)

justoffal said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> > It was 84 degrees near the Arctic Ocean this weekend as carbon dioxide hit its highest level in human history  It was only 84 degrees in the Arctic this past weekend, eclipsing  record highs for the area. In known history that has never happened.  In the mean time, Trump and the rest of these oil butt boys, are contemplating drilling for oil in the Arctic. You think they give a shit? Or Republicans? Or some Democrats? Hell no. People, the wealthy are stealing resources for short term gain at the expense of the planet, our lives, and the creatures that live here.. And we enable this insanity. When does it stop? Other countries are moving forward with green energy plans, and we are not. When does the madness end?
> ...


"OMG!" People, did you just read what I read from this poster?    WHY ARE TRUMP VOTERS SO FUCKING IGNORANT?  If it was tropical dunce, it's because it was tropical and not cold. Meaning, that area wasn't the "ARCTIC" at that time period in our history. We are talking about the time period when the Arctic was the Arctic. Somebody help these people learn "something", please. My God these people are clueless.


----------



## BWK (Jul 22, 2019)

justoffal said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> > Defiant1 said:
> ...


You are so fuckin boring and ignorant. Go find a hole to jump in. You don't say anything that is worth shit.


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb (Jul 22, 2019)

*Climate Change is not man made, but Climate Change FEAR is 100% greedy corrupt Left Wing Extremist man made.*


----------



## 22lcidw (Jul 22, 2019)

BWK said:


> justoffal said:
> 
> 
> > BWK said:
> ...


Who cares? Lied to by politicians, entertainers and media for many decades just numbs you. You Progs have so many agendas and warnings with many being approved by law and the one both sides agreed with at one time or another for decades at the Southern border is a joke to you. By the words of your masters when the scam started near half century ago, where I live at was supposed to be under water by now. With half the state gone easily.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 22, 2019)

BWK said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > BWK said:
> ...


You know what I meant you  brain dead lefty  moron your buddies all made predictions of dire events occurring because of supposed man made warming and NOT a single one has come true.


----------



## BWK (Jul 22, 2019)

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> *Climate Change is not man made, but Climate Change FEAR is 100% greedy corrupt Left Wing Extremist man made.*


What is your scientific proof that the Arctic temperatures are not man made  or you are a liar?


----------



## Defiant1 (Jul 22, 2019)

BWK said:


> justoffal said:
> 
> 
> > BWK said:
> ...




That was probably before we moved the equator.


----------



## BWK (Jul 22, 2019)

RetiredGySgt said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


No, Liberals don't know what you are saying, because  no Liberal predicted it would happen yesterday. So you're nothing more than a friggin liar. Get the fuck out of here. Liars like you suck and waste everyone's time.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 22, 2019)

BWK said:


> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> > *Climate Change is not man made, but Climate Change FEAR is 100% greedy corrupt Left Wing Extremist man made.*
> ...




You cant prove a negative you science illiterate fool

.


----------



## BWK (Jul 22, 2019)

Defiant1 said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> > justoffal said:
> ...


More dumb responses from Trump Loons who don't know their Dicks from their asses.


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 22, 2019)

BWK said:


> It was 84 degrees near the Arctic Ocean this weekend as carbon dioxide hit its highest level in human history  It was only 84 degrees in the Arctic this past weekend, eclipsing  record highs for the area. In known history that has never happened.  In the mean time, Trump and the rest of these oil butt boys, are contemplating drilling for oil in the Arctic. You think they give a shit? Or Republicans? Or some Democrats? Hell no. People, the wealthy are stealing resources for short term gain at the expense of the planet, our lives, and the creatures that live here.. And we enable this insanity. When does it stop? Other countries are moving forward with green energy plans, and we are not. When does the madness end?


Your link:





Human activities since the Industrial Revolution has increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to levels last seen before human beings existed. 

Humanity will likely survive, but Human civilization could end.

‘High Likelihood of Human Civilization Coming to an End’ in 2050, New Report Suggests


----------



## Oddball (Jul 22, 2019)

Erinwltr said:


> Eighteen of the 19 warmest years on record for the planet have occurred since 2000, and we keep observing these highly unusual and often record-breaking high temperatures.
> 
> They won’t stop soon, but cuts to greenhouse emissions would eventually slow them down.
> 
> Thing that gets me is that we have the ability to stop this or at least drastically slow it.


----------



## BWK (Jul 22, 2019)

bear513 said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> > TroglocratsRdumb said:
> ...


Scientific data from actual scientists aren't "negatives. " Try again. Well, that's right, how can you try again?  Trump's degenerates don't possess data. They stay stuck on stupid and provide absolutely nothing. People, this is boring. All these uneducated Trump voters and they haven't said shit.  They are so pitiful.


----------



## August West (Jul 22, 2019)

Darkwind said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > BWK said:
> ...


Where did you get the idea that other countries aren`t lowering their carbon footprint? China`s goal is to ban the sale of internal combustion engines by 2040 and they`re one of the world leaders in wind and solar power today. When China says no more fossil fueled cars the rest of the world will follow because China is the #1 market for auto sales today.
China moves towards banning the internal combustion engine
Compare China`s solar capacity to ours. We are far behind. Leave your FOX news bubble and learn something. I can help.
China is on an epic solar power binge


----------



## Oddball (Jul 22, 2019)

Rustic said:


>


----------



## BWK (Jul 22, 2019)

georgephillip said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> > It was 84 degrees near the Arctic Ocean this weekend as carbon dioxide hit its highest level in human history  It was only 84 degrees in the Arctic this past weekend, eclipsing  record highs for the area. In known history that has never happened.  In the mean time, Trump and the rest of these oil butt boys, are contemplating drilling for oil in the Arctic. You think they give a shit? Or Republicans? Or some Democrats? Hell no. People, the wealthy are stealing resources for short term gain at the expense of the planet, our lives, and the creatures that live here.. And we enable this insanity. When does it stop? Other countries are moving forward with green energy plans, and we are not. When does the madness end?
> ...


THESE REPUBLICAN JIM BOB'S DON'T CARE.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 22, 2019)

BWK said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > BWK said:
> ...


LOL you lying little weasel. There have been dozens of predictions that have come and gone and NOT one has happened.


----------



## 22lcidw (Jul 22, 2019)

August West said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...


Its just that the smog they produce blocks the sun from hitting their solar panels.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 22, 2019)

BWK said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > BWK said:
> ...




Once again fool you can't prove a false, God damn you are stupid, prove to us that man is causing it as you claim.

.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 22, 2019)

BWK said:


> It was 84 degrees near the Arctic Ocean this weekend as carbon dioxide hit its highest level in human history  It was only 84 degrees in the Arctic this past weekend, eclipsing  record highs for the area. In known history that has never happened.  In the mean time, Trump and the rest of these oil butt boys, are contemplating drilling for oil in the Arctic. You think they give a shit? Or Republicans? Or some Democrats? Hell no. People, the wealthy are stealing resources for short term gain at the expense of the planet, our lives, and the creatures that live here.. And we enable this insanity. When does it stop? Other countries are moving forward with green energy plans, and we are not. When does the madness end?


Wait a minute....Isn't localized weather supposed to be completely different from climate?

Oh, that's only when it suites your Chicken Little narrative....Otherwise, it's completely irrelevant.


----------



## Defiant1 (Jul 22, 2019)

BWK said:


> Defiant1 said:
> 
> 
> > BWK said:
> ...




I found what you want for Xmas this year.  Send this link to your family and friends.   Trump Straws - Pack of 10


----------



## BWK (Jul 22, 2019)

22lcidw said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> > justoffal said:
> ...


Your problems at the border wouldn't pass as dust in the wind compared to what we are doing to this planet.  And by the way, we already know you don't care. It's who Republicans really  are. They do not care for others. Just themselves and it's just in the moment.


----------



## BWK (Jul 22, 2019)

Oddball said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> > It was 84 degrees near the Arctic Ocean this weekend as carbon dioxide hit its highest level in human history  It was only 84 degrees in the Arctic this past weekend, eclipsing  record highs for the area. In known history that has never happened.  In the mean time, Trump and the rest of these oil butt boys, are contemplating drilling for oil in the Arctic. You think they give a shit? Or Republicans? Or some Democrats? Hell no. People, the wealthy are stealing resources for short term gain at the expense of the planet, our lives, and the creatures that live here.. And we enable this insanity. When does it stop? Other countries are moving forward with green energy plans, and we are not. When does the madness end?
> ...


OMG! WHY WHY ARE THESE FOLKS SO DAMN IGNORANT? "Localized weather?" Do you consider the entire Arctic as "localized weather?" What else can you do but laugh at these Trump voting buffoons.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 22, 2019)

BWK said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > BWK said:
> ...


10 times 'experts' predicted the world would end by now

Yup no one predicted shit right?


----------



## BWK (Jul 22, 2019)

Defiant1 said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> > Defiant1 said:
> ...


Sadly for you, Trump, his voters, we are all losers, and it's  because of your parties stupidity.


----------



## martybegan (Jul 22, 2019)

BWK said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Erinwltr said:
> ...



Only response required to your usual blathering, as well as the blathering of the post I responded to.


----------



## BWK (Jul 22, 2019)

RetiredGySgt said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


*A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000."  *"Could be wiped off the face of the earth." Do you even read what you post? The guy didn't say it would end then you idiot. Read your own shit before post up bs.


----------



## martybegan (Jul 22, 2019)

BWK said:


> Erinwltr said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



I understand more about climate models than you do, as well as the obvious socialist overtones of the current green movement.


----------



## 22lcidw (Jul 22, 2019)

BWK said:


> 22lcidw said:
> 
> 
> > BWK said:
> ...


You don't know who voted for Trump. You think it was all of the most right wing people in American history. There are not that many. My party affiliation has been Dem, Independent and Repub in my life. Getting lied to by politicians builds a knack to question their motives at some point. Those problems at the border are important for our nation. When we are poor enough there will be nothing done for your green projects. I guarantee you the poorer people will be cutting down trees and finding coal and burn them in large 55 gallon drums to survive. And then you will see massive carbon vented into the atmosphere. And spouting care does not mean a Prog that lives many miles and more from a problem living in comfort while drinking his/her expensive champagne is caring that much to tell you the truth. Its just saying the right things and keeping the barbarians at the gate.


----------



## martybegan (Jul 22, 2019)

Kilroy2 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Erinwltr said:
> ...



So we sell our souls to our government betters, and reduce our living standard, while said betters continue to jet about and ignore what they preach for us proles.


----------



## martybegan (Jul 22, 2019)

BWK said:


> Kilroy2 said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Actually radical environmentalism is nothing but "ME ME ME"

The hubris that somehow modern living standards need to be destroyed to assuage the guilt of liberal twats such as yourself.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 22, 2019)

Another set of Predictions not panning out.  Thirty Years On, How Well Do Global Warming Predictions Stand Up?


----------



## BWK (Jul 22, 2019)

martybegan said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


Boss, find yourself a hole to jump in. Your vegetable debate  got old before you started.


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb (Jul 22, 2019)

*Climate Change FEAR is used by the Left Wing Politicians to grow their political power.
They use it to herd the dumb liberal crackpots to the polls.*


----------



## Dale Smith (Jul 22, 2019)

Geoengineering is the major cause.


----------



## BWK (Jul 22, 2019)

martybegan said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> > Kilroy2 said:
> ...


Yea, says who? You? And you are? What links can you provide to back up your claim? Oh, that's right, you can't provide any. You're a simpleton Trump voter who doesn't give a shit.


----------



## martybegan (Jul 22, 2019)

BWK said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > BWK said:
> ...



And you use weird weather to claim GLOBUL WURMING.

Then when cold weather hits you ignore said weather because it doesn't fit your narrative.


----------



## BWK (Jul 22, 2019)

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> *Climate Change FEAR is used by the Left Wing Politicians to grow their political power.
> They use it to herd the dumb liberal crackpots to the polls.*


Better yet, they use it to expose  these ignorant  Trump Sheep for what they are.


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb (Jul 22, 2019)

*The Democrat Scientists have invented the solution to climate change.*


----------



## BWK (Jul 22, 2019)

martybegan said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


"OMG",people,I have hit a treasure trove of grade A pure idiotism. This poster does not understand what "Global warming" is.


----------



## BWK (Jul 22, 2019)

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> *The Democrat Scientists have invented the solution to climate change.*
> View attachment 270511


At least somebody cares. You sure as hell don't.


----------



## martybegan (Jul 22, 2019)

BWK said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > BWK said:
> ...



I doubt you do either.

AGW is just an excuse for more government control of more people. 

And like the sheep you are, you go along with it.


----------



## gipper (Jul 22, 2019)

Wry Catcher said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> > It was 84 degrees near the Arctic Ocean this weekend as carbon dioxide hit its highest level in human history  It was only 84 degrees in the Arctic this past weekend, eclipsing  record highs for the area. In known history that has never happened.  In the mean time, Trump and the rest of these oil butt boys, are contemplating drilling for oil in the Arctic. You think they give a shit? Or Republicans? Or some Democrats? Hell no. People, the wealthy are stealing resources for short term gain at the expense of the planet, our lives, and the creatures that live here.. And we enable this insanity. When does it stop? Other countries are moving forward with green energy plans, and we are not. When does the madness end?
> ...


That’s rich, since they did nothing about climate change when your Messiah held both houses.


----------



## BWK (Jul 22, 2019)

Dale Smith said:


> Geoengineering is the major cause.
> 
> View attachment 270510


Do you know what that concrete interstate means to our environment? What about the plastic monoculture grass that was planted there? Do you believe  that no harm comes because of that? To answer those questions, you will have to understand basic Ecology and Agrostology.


----------



## BWK (Jul 22, 2019)

martybegan said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


You are totally void of any interesting debate because you are too damn ignorant and shallow to even care, so you invent these ridiculous excuses about government control. If you had any idea of just how shallow you really are, lol, you still wouldn't give a shit. The "ME" is all that concerns a Trump voter.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 22, 2019)

Q. By how much must we lower CO2 to stop the climate from every changing again?

A. $93,000,000,000,000


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 22, 2019)

According to the non-existent lab work, by how much does each 10PPM increment of CO2 cause the temperature to increase?

A. What lab work?
B. Denier!  Burn in Hell Denier! We have Consensus!
C. Where the fuck is Old Rocks anyway, I haven't seen him here in a while
D. Lab work? It's right under Michael Mann's pinkie


----------



## BWK (Jul 22, 2019)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Q. By how much must we lower CO2 to stop the climate from every changing again?
> 
> A. $93,000,000,000,000


We, meaning the world?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 22, 2019)

BWK said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Q. By how much must we lower CO2 to stop the climate from every changing again?
> ...



No just the USA.  The rest of the world is harmless in this, only the bad, mean capitalist USA is to blame!


----------



## lantern2814 (Jul 22, 2019)

Wry Catcher said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > BWK said:
> ...



How do you and BWK like your crow? Per your Saint Al Gore, NYC was supposed to be underwater about a decade ago. The polar ice caps were supposed to be a distant memory by now. Nobody with a brain believes this crap anymore.


----------



## BWK (Jul 22, 2019)

CrusaderFrank said:


> According to the non-existent lab work, by how much does each 10PPM increment of CO2 cause the temperature to increase?
> 
> A. What lab work?
> B. Denier!  Burn in Hell Denier! We have Consensus!
> ...





CrusaderFrank said:


> Q. By how much must we lower CO2 to stop the climate from every changing again?
> 
> A. $93,000,000,000,000


  Money or death. Which one do you value more?


----------



## BWK (Jul 22, 2019)

lantern2814 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


97% of scientists do, along with all the developed countries, except the US.


----------



## BWK (Jul 22, 2019)

CrusaderFrank said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Except the other developed countries are owning up to their mistakes. We are far behind them in taking responsibility for any blame.


----------



## lantern2814 (Jul 22, 2019)

BWK said:


> lantern2814 said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



No, the liberal scientists desperate to keep getting that grant money say this. Every developed country? You mean those ones that wanted to take billions from the United States while doing jack and shit about their own problems. One of the biggest scams of all time.


----------



## Obiwan (Jul 22, 2019)

BWK said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > BWK said:
> ...


Send the bill to the worst polluters, like China...

And when they refuse to pay up, I suggest that we send the Liberals over to collect!!!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jul 22, 2019)

BWK said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > According to the non-existent lab work, by how much does each 10PPM increment of CO2 cause the temperature to increase?
> ...



WTF are you babbling about? You believe that a rounding error in CO2 is changing the climate of planet Earth?  If so, where's your lab work?


----------



## LuckyDuck (Jul 22, 2019)

BWK said:


> It was 84 degrees near the Arctic Ocean this weekend as carbon dioxide hit its highest level in human history  It was only 84 degrees in the Arctic this past weekend, eclipsing  record highs for the area. In known history that has never happened.  In the mean time, Trump and the rest of these oil butt boys, are contemplating drilling for oil in the Arctic. You think they give a shit? Or Republicans? Or some Democrats? Hell no. People, the wealthy are stealing resources for short term gain at the expense of the planet, our lives, and the creatures that live here.. And we enable this insanity. When does it stop? Other countries are moving forward with green energy plans, and we are not. When does the madness end?


All scientists agree that humans are a factor in the environmental changes, they just disagree on how much man has contributed.  In my opinion, we are probably a significant factor in the equation.  However, there are far more "third-world" nations than there are "first-world" nations and the third-world nations which have large populations, struggle with their growing needs and still rely on forests for building, more land for farming, as well as land for buildings to house small businesses to provide various services for the growing needs of those populations. 
Humans chop down vast forest tracts for their needs while ignoring the importance of those very trees they destroy.  They provide shade from the heat, absorb carbon dioxide for their growth, emit oxygen and provide habitats for animal and insect life.
Some scientists are now saying that for the earth to heal and remain healthy, two-thirds of the planet would have to return to its natural state and the human population significantly reduced.  
The entire thing is complicated and there is no magic bullet.  China tried the "one-child only" routine and that didn't pan out, as the fathers only wanted boys and when discovering that the fetus was a girl, they had them aborted and thus ended up with a significant male-female imbalance and other couples just kept having children, regardless of the law.
I think the whole thing will eventually rectify itself as our food resources are not able to keep pace with the growing population needs, massive numbers of people will just end up being starved out.  Once the human population has been reduced through starvation, those that remain will no doubt take whatever measures they need to, to ensure that people limit the number of offspring they have.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jul 22, 2019)

Erinwltr said:


> Eighteen of the 19 warmest years on record for the planet have occurred since 2000, and we keep observing these highly unusual and often record-breaking high temperatures.
> 
> They won’t stop soon, but cuts to greenhouse emissions would eventually slow them down.
> 
> Thing that gets me is that we have the ability to stop this or at least drastically slow it.


Records going all the way back to the origins of the earth in the 1870’s.
Plants gotta be loving all of that CO2.
AGW is a Marxist scam.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jul 22, 2019)

At least the thread title makes sense.


----------



## Oddball (Jul 22, 2019)

BWK said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > BWK said:
> ...


Ignorant you  say?...I'm not the making one argument one moment and another one the next.

Fucking dweeb.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 22, 2019)

BWK said:


> It was 84 degrees near the Arctic Ocean this weekend as carbon dioxide hit its highest level in human history  It was only 84 degrees in the Arctic this past weekend, eclipsing  record highs for the area. In known history that has never happened.  In the mean time, Trump and the rest of these oil butt boys, are contemplating drilling for oil in the Arctic. You think they give a shit? Or Republicans? Or some Democrats? Hell no. People, the wealthy are stealing resources for short term gain at the expense of the planet, our lives, and the creatures that live here.. And we enable this insanity. When does it stop? Other countries are moving forward with green energy plans, and we are not. When does the madness end?




If you sacrificed a large goat, you could probably appease the man made global warming gods you believe in....

The rest of us...believe in weather...


----------



## Markle (Jul 22, 2019)

Erinwltr said:


> Eighteen of the 19 warmest years on record for the planet have occurred since 2000, and we keep observing these highly unusual and often record-breaking high temperatures.
> 
> They won’t stop soon, but cuts to greenhouse emissions would eventually slow them down.
> 
> *Thing that gets me is that we have the ability to stop this or at least drastically sw itlo.*



Wow, who knew.

PLEASE, specifically tell us all how!

Please keep this in mind too.


----------



## otto105 (Jul 22, 2019)

martybegan said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> > It was 84 degrees near the Arctic Ocean this weekend as carbon dioxide hit its highest level in human history  It was only 84 degrees in the Arctic this past weekend, eclipsing  record highs for the area. In known history that has never happened.  In the mean time, Trump and the rest of these oil butt boys, are contemplating drilling for oil in the Arctic. You think they give a shit? Or Republicans? Or some Democrats? Hell no. People, the wealthy are stealing resources for short term gain at the expense of the planet, our lives, and the creatures that live here.. And we enable this insanity. When does it stop? Other countries are moving forward with green energy plans, and we are not. When does the madness end?
> ...



Ya, take out a denier....


----------



## 22lcidw (Jul 22, 2019)

LuckyDuck said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> > It was 84 degrees near the Arctic Ocean this weekend as carbon dioxide hit its highest level in human history  It was only 84 degrees in the Arctic this past weekend, eclipsing  record highs for the area. In known history that has never happened.  In the mean time, Trump and the rest of these oil butt boys, are contemplating drilling for oil in the Arctic. You think they give a shit? Or Republicans? Or some Democrats? Hell no. People, the wealthy are stealing resources for short term gain at the expense of the planet, our lives, and the creatures that live here.. And we enable this insanity. When does it stop? Other countries are moving forward with green energy plans, and we are not. When does the madness end?
> ...


The all scientists part is a lie. Humans affect the world with pollution. Affecting the word in climate change is something else. The world will keep moving to go green. But it won't go green at the speed you want at this time. People never learn as our masters know better. We have been given an education for many years. And we let social justice muddy the view of reality.


----------



## fncceo (Jul 22, 2019)

Erinwltr said:


> Eighteen of the 19 warmest years on record for the planet have occurred since 2000, and we keep observing these highly unusual and often record-breaking high temperatures.
> 
> They won’t stop soon, but cuts to greenhouse emissions would eventually slow them down.
> 
> Thing that gets me is that we have the ability to stop this or at least drastically slow it.



Why would we want to stop it?  Do you hate polar bears?!


----------



## 22lcidw (Jul 22, 2019)

fncceo said:


> Erinwltr said:
> 
> 
> > Eighteen of the 19 warmest years on record for the planet have occurred since 2000, and we keep observing these highly unusual and often record-breaking high temperatures.
> ...


The cruise industry will make hundreds of billions of dollars.


----------



## Markle (Jul 22, 2019)

August West said:


> Where did you get the idea that other countries aren`t lowering their carbon footprint? China`s goal is to ban the sale of internal combustion engines by 2040 and they`re one of the world leaders in wind and solar power today. When China says no more fossil fueled cars the rest of the world will follow because China is the #1 market for auto sales today.
> China moves towards banning the internal combustion engine
> Compare China`s solar capacity to ours. We are far behind. Leave your FOX news bubble and learn something. I can help.
> China is on an epic solar power binge



You really need to do a bit of research. 

How many coal-powered power plants are being built by China?  How many households in China still use animal dung to cook with and heat?


----------



## Markle (Jul 22, 2019)

Dale Smith said:


> Geoengineering is the major cause.
> 
> View attachment 270510



 What the heck are you talking about?


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Jul 22, 2019)

BWK is not American. There aren’t any true scientific gauges of how much the warming is due to man and how much to nature. BWK is a disruptive non American troll.


----------



## BWK (Jul 22, 2019)

CrusaderFrank said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Just to set the record straight, the US is still the biggest polluter in the world, and the Republican party doesn't give two shits.


----------



## BWK (Jul 22, 2019)

AzogtheDefiler said:


> BWK is not American. There aren’t any true scientific gauges of how much the warming is due to man and how much to nature. BWK is a disruptive non American troll.


Do you show up here just let us all know how far you are willing to walk down the stupid trail? I mean seriously, no one steps into more shit than you;  https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/gauging-climate-change/


----------



## BWK (Jul 22, 2019)

Markle said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Geoengineering is the major cause.
> ...


He doesn't know. Every post is designed as a distraction.


----------



## Dekster (Jul 22, 2019)

BWK said:


> It was 84 degrees near the Arctic Ocean this weekend as carbon dioxide hit its highest level in human history  It was only 84 degrees in the Arctic this past weekend, eclipsing  record highs for the area. In known history that has never happened.  In the mean time, Trump and the rest of these oil butt boys, are contemplating drilling for oil in the Arctic. You think they give a shit? Or Republicans? Or some Democrats? Hell no. People, the wealthy are stealing resources for short term gain at the expense of the planet, our lives, and the creatures that live here.. And we enable this insanity. When does it stop? Other countries are moving forward with green energy plans, and we are not. When does the madness end?



Thanks for the weather report.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Jul 22, 2019)

BWK said:


> It was 84 degrees near the Arctic Ocean this weekend as carbon dioxide hit its highest level in human history  It was only 84 degrees in the Arctic this past weekend, eclipsing  record highs for the area. In known history that has never happened.  In the mean time, Trump and the rest of these oil butt boys, are contemplating drilling for oil in the Arctic. You think they give a shit? Or Republicans? Or some Democrats? Hell no. People, the wealthy are stealing resources for short term gain at the expense of the planet, our lives, and the creatures that live here.. And we enable this insanity. When does it stop? Other countries are moving forward with green energy plans, and we are not. When does the madness end?


Once again weather is climate.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 22, 2019)

BWK said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> > BWK is not American. There aren’t any true scientific gauges of how much the warming is due to man and how much to nature. BWK is a disruptive non American troll.
> ...


Meanwhile you claimed no one said that society was coming to an end due to the climate or any other natural reason caused by man. You lied and when presented with 10 claims you said only only said it might happen. Remind us how many scientific tests have been done proving rising CO2 raises temperatures and exactly what raise on CO2 causes the temp to g up......


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Jul 22, 2019)

BWK said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> > BWK is not American. There aren’t any true scientific gauges of how much the warming is due to man and how much to nature. BWK is a disruptive non American troll.
> ...



Opinions vary and you are not American
Global Warming Debate + Facts and Statistics - ReuseThisBag.com


----------



## BWK (Jul 22, 2019)

The U.S. Is the Biggest Carbon Polluter in History. It Just Walked Away From the Paris Climate Deal.

The US military is a bigger polluter than more than 100 countries combined

Anyone on this board want to contest this?


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Jul 22, 2019)

RetiredGySgt said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> > AzogtheDefiler said:
> ...



He is a foreign troll. I ve busted him before.


----------



## BWK (Jul 22, 2019)

RetiredGySgt said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> > AzogtheDefiler said:
> ...


You do not understand semantics, and I am not interested in sending you to school on the subject. Believe whatever horse shit you want to believe. You're a denier and that's all I need to know.


----------



## Markle (Jul 22, 2019)

BWK said:


> 97% of scientists do, along with all the developed countries, except the US.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Jul 22, 2019)

BWK said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > BWK said:
> ...



You deny you’re not American. LOL and there is climate change but how much is man made is still a ?. Yes we contribute but so so erupting volcanoes


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 22, 2019)

BWK said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > BWK said:
> ...


And yet you can not cite a single scientific source that has confirmed that CO2 of a certain amount raises the temperature a certain amount. What science DOES say is CO2 follows rising temperatures and has a diminishing effect as it rises.


----------



## Third Party (Jul 22, 2019)

BWK said:


> It was 84 degrees near the Arctic Ocean this weekend as carbon dioxide hit its highest level in human history  It was only 84 degrees in the Arctic this past weekend, eclipsing  record highs for the area. In known history that has never happened.  In the mean time, Trump and the rest of these oil butt boys, are contemplating drilling for oil in the Arctic. You think they give a shit? Or Republicans? Or some Democrats? Hell no. People, the wealthy are stealing resources for short term gain at the expense of the planet, our lives, and the creatures that live here.. And we enable this insanity. When does it stop? Other countries are moving forward with green energy plans, and we are not. When does the madness end?


So, there was a solar flair the week the arctic hit 84-does that mean the arctic temp causes solar flares? You have faulty logic-climate change is planet driven-man can only seed clouds for weather change.


----------



## BWK (Jul 22, 2019)

Dekster said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> > It was 84 degrees near the Arctic Ocean this weekend as carbon dioxide hit its highest level in human history  It was only 84 degrees in the Arctic this past weekend, eclipsing  record highs for the area. In known history that has never happened.  In the mean time, Trump and the rest of these oil butt boys, are contemplating drilling for oil in the Arctic. You think they give a shit? Or Republicans? Or some Democrats? Hell no. People, the wealthy are stealing resources for short term gain at the expense of the planet, our lives, and the creatures that live here.. And we enable this insanity. When does it stop? Other countries are moving forward with green energy plans, and we are not. When does the madness end?
> ...


LOl! The Right and their consistent failures to challenge the facts.


----------



## BWK (Jul 22, 2019)

Third Party said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> > It was 84 degrees near the Arctic Ocean this weekend as carbon dioxide hit its highest level in human history  It was only 84 degrees in the Arctic this past weekend, eclipsing  record highs for the area. In known history that has never happened.  In the mean time, Trump and the rest of these oil butt boys, are contemplating drilling for oil in the Arctic. You think they give a shit? Or Republicans? Or some Democrats? Hell no. People, the wealthy are stealing resources for short term gain at the expense of the planet, our lives, and the creatures that live here.. And we enable this insanity. When does it stop? Other countries are moving forward with green energy plans, and we are not. When does the madness end?
> ...


   No, it just means  Duh publicans are too ignorant to ask the right questions.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 22, 2019)

BWK said:


> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> > BWK said:
> ...


I am still waiting for the links to the experiments that show x amount of CO2 cause x amount of increased heat.


----------



## Third Party (Jul 22, 2019)

BWK said:


> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> > BWK said:
> ...


Here's the right question-Do you want to buy a bridge I have to sell?


----------



## Markle (Jul 22, 2019)

LuckyDuck said:


> *All scientists agree* that humans are a factor in the environmental changes, they just disagree on how much man has contributed. In my opinion, we are probably a significant factor in the equation. However, there are far more "third-world" nations than there are "first-world" nations and the third-world nations which have large populations, struggle with their growing needs and still rely on forests for building, more land for farming, as well as land for buildings to house small businesses to provide various services for the growing needs of those populations.
> Humans chop down vast forest tracts for their needs while ignoring the importance of those very trees they destroy. They provide shade from the heat, absorb carbon dioxide for their growth, emit oxygen and provide habitats for animal and insect life.
> Some scientists are now saying that for the earth to heal and remain healthy, two-thirds of the planet would have to return to its natural state and the human population significantly reduced.
> The entire thing is complicated and there is no magic bullet. China tried the "one-child only" routine and that didn't pan out, as the fathers only wanted boys and when discovering that the fetus was a girl, they had them aborted and thus ended up with a significant male-female imbalance and other couples just kept having children, regardless of the law.
> I think the whole thing will eventually rectify itself as our food resources are not able to keep pace with the growing population needs, massive numbers of people will just end up being starved out. Once the human population has been reduced through starvation, those that remain will no doubt take whatever measures they need to, to ensure that people limit the number of offspring they have.



No reason to read any further when your first utterance is a lie?


----------



## BWK (Jul 22, 2019)

RetiredGySgt said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


Is there something here you are having trouble understanding? It's all about balance.   
*Carbon dioxide is the biggest problem





200300400500600CO₂P.P.M.




Atmospheric carbon dioxide

In parts per million

398

400

375

350

325

316

300

Oct. 2015

March 1958

Source: NOAA Earth System Research Lab.

Carbon dioxide is produced naturally by many sources — every time we exhale, for instance. Oceans absorb it, and plants use it during photosynthesis. That makes for a nice give-and-take called the carbon cycle. But carbon dioxide is also a huge byproduct of industry, and it accounts for about 82 percent of U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions. Oceans and plants cannot absorb that much.

What does this gauge show?

Before the Industrial Revolution, the atmosphere contained about 280 parts per million of carbon dioxide. By 2015, the annual average was above 400 ppm, according to the World Meteorological Organization. Some climate experts say that level is already too high to avoid grim repercussions from global warming; others say we still have wiggle room.

*
_*[Holding warming under two degrees Celsius is the goal. But is it still attainable?]*_
*
What’s the problem?

Scientists say we have already burned two-thirds of the amount of carbon the atmosphere can handle before the planet warms beyond the “danger zone,” which many consider to be two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above historical averages. Even a massive reduction in emissions now won’t help reduce what is already there, because some carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for thousands of years.
*


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 22, 2019)

Markle said:


> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> > *All scientists agree* that humans are a factor in the environmental changes, they just disagree on how much man has contributed. In my opinion, we are probably a significant factor in the equation. However, there are far more "third-world" nations than there are "first-world" nations and the third-world nations which have large populations, struggle with their growing needs and still rely on forests for building, more land for farming, as well as land for buildings to house small businesses to provide various services for the growing needs of those populations.
> ...


He keeps refusing to link to the experiments conducted by all these scientists that shows x amount of CO2 causes x amount of warming.....


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 22, 2019)

BWK said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > BWK said:
> ...


I am waiting for the link to experiments that PROVE x amount of CO2 cause x  amount of warming. You keep claiming you can prove man made global warming because of CO2 provide the proof.


----------



## BWK (Jul 22, 2019)

Third Party said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> > Third Party said:
> ...


Buy it for what? To see it sink into the ocean because there were too many Republican idiots who didn't care what happened to the planet? No thanks. You can sell it to some dumb ass Trump voter.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 22, 2019)

BWK said:


> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> > BWK said:
> ...


I am still waiting for that link.....


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Jul 22, 2019)

BWK said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > BWK said:
> ...



How much is manmade vs nature? Why are you posting this on a US Messageboard?


----------



## BWK (Jul 22, 2019)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > LuckyDuck said:
> ...


I already did, but you failed comprehension class, and took up a wisted semantics class instead.  You aren't bright enough to understand what it is that you are reading. That's on you and your own willful ignorance;   https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/gauging-climate-change/


----------



## Dekster (Jul 22, 2019)

BWK said:


> Dekster said:
> 
> 
> > BWK said:
> ...



I take it you didn't read your own source.  No worries, this time this december it won't be 84 degrees in this one place in Russia--the one your article calls a single data point--and atmospheric carbon will be even higher. 

Wonder why you chose not to post the story about the research also being reported today that a 3 year study reveals the Ross Ice Shelf is melting because of local surface weather, not because of global ocean temperatures and it is melting in different places than they thought.  Is it because that local weather story doesn't fit your narrative or is it because it highlights that the climate models are once again wrong about their assumptions? I mean just last year you folks were proclaiming that the largest piece ever to break off the Ross Ice Shelf ever in history was due to global warming.  Why so silent on that now.  Just weather, just like your warm day in Russia


----------



## Markle (Jul 22, 2019)

BWK said:


> Just to set the record straight, the US is still the biggest polluter in the world, and the Republican party doesn't give two shits.



ANOTHER lie!  Why?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 22, 2019)

BWK said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...


That does no such thing you lying piece of human garbage. Now either link to an actual experiment or admit you are full of shit.


----------



## BWK (Jul 22, 2019)

AzogtheDefiler said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


Don't you understand the link? Are you people so illiterate that  you cannot extract the information from what you are reading? https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/gauging-climate-change/


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 22, 2019)

BWK said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> > BWK said:
> ...


That is not an experiment and they have not cited a single thing that proves their claim. They simply listed data and provided NO connection via a valid experiment that connects the data. So much for science.


----------



## BWK (Jul 22, 2019)

RetiredGySgt said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


Sure it does. It explains exactly what is going on in our atmosphere between the balance needed from natural CO2 with plants and animals  versus  industrial CO2. It is pointing out the necessity for balance. Nature itself has to reach a balance. It makes all life on earth possible. Your problem is, you are too ignorant and filled with hate to ever see the forest for the tree. All you can do at this point is attack with ad hominem. You have nothing intelligent to toss back into this argument because you are too uninformed.

Your demands for experiment is on you. My article already has done the experiment and has moved on to conclusions and strategies.


----------



## Rambunctious (Jul 22, 2019)

Do you know how to herd animals and control their movements?....you frighten them.....


----------



## BWK (Jul 22, 2019)

RetiredGySgt said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> > AzogtheDefiler said:
> ...


Lol! You are hung up on experiments as if 97% of the scientists who already did their experiments and concluded that  industrial CO2 is the problem. They aren't the problem , you are.


----------



## BWK (Jul 22, 2019)

Rambunctious said:


> Do you know how to herd animals and control their movements?....you frighten them.....


Have you ever considered asking a real question instead of making up these stupid one's?


----------



## Rambunctious (Jul 22, 2019)

BWK said:


> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> > Do you know how to herd animals and control their movements?....you frighten them.....
> ...


They have sure succeeded in scarring you....and so you are under their complete control....


----------



## Obiwan (Jul 22, 2019)




----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 22, 2019)

BWK said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > BWK said:
> ...


No it does not, NO ONE knows how much CO2 heats what and NO ONE has ever done an experiment to show it. That is a scientific FACT you lying MORON.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Jul 22, 2019)

BWK said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> > BWK said:
> ...



Post is a Left leaning biased paper. Why would I believe that? I posted a link that showed both sides and again you’re not American. Why do you care what we do when Russia and China cause way more man made CO2 than the US?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 22, 2019)

BWK said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > BWK said:
> ...


Then cite all their experiments you loon.


----------



## NotYourBody (Jul 22, 2019)

BWK said:


> justoffal said:
> 
> 
> > BWK said:
> ...


Science is too hard for them. I don't think you can fix that. Seriously. They are too stupid.

You already know how this will end. When it's WAY TOO LATE too fix anything, they'll blame the libruls for not making them do something while there was still time.


----------



## BWK (Jul 22, 2019)

Markle said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> > Just to set the record straight, the US is still the biggest polluter in the world, and the Republican party doesn't give two shits.
> ...


I already linked the truth that you have not debunked. What's your problem? You call me a liar, and I prove you wrong with links.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/threa...mate-change-folks.768225/page-6#post-22768110


----------



## BWK (Jul 22, 2019)

RetiredGySgt said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


Still stuck on stupid I see.


----------



## whitehall (Jul 22, 2019)

Highest level in ...._Human history? _ Were they measuring the level of co2 when they were building the Pyramids? If MM global warming was fact they wouldn't call it a theory. Warming guru Al Gore predicted the end of the world by 2020 while he was making money off "carbon credits" and the crazy left picked up on it as a political issue.


----------



## Third Party (Jul 22, 2019)

BWK said:


> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> > BWK said:
> ...


You are a serious poster? Get a grip.


----------



## BWK (Jul 22, 2019)

BWK said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > BWK said:
> ...



#

The U.S. Is the Biggest Carbon Polluter in History. It Just Walked Away From the Paris Climate Deal.

The US military is a bigger polluter than more than 100 countries combined

Anyone on this board want to contest this?


----------



## BWK (Jul 22, 2019)

Third Party said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> > Third Party said:
> ...


I wasn't the one who asked the stupid question, that deserved a stupid answer.  I got a hold of myself from post #1 while presenting the facts. It's the Right who has failed getting a hold of themselves with their constant barrage of idiotic responses with  no substance.


----------



## BWK (Jul 22, 2019)

whitehall said:


> Highest level in ...._Human history? _ Were they measuring the level of co2 when they were building the Pyramids? If MM global warming was fact they wouldn't call it a theory. Warming guru Al Gore predicted the end of the world by 2020 while he was making money off "carbon credits" and the crazy left picked up on it as a political issue.


You are so fucking ignorant you have no idea how they measure CO2.


----------



## BWK (Jul 22, 2019)

NotYourBody said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> > justoffal said:
> ...


Yep!  You are exactly right. They fell in line with cultism and make believe,  facts, figures, science, the truth, and the law be damned. Like I said, it's as simple as this, they truly do not give a shit about the planet, and today, July 22, 2019,  as long as they've got theirs, everybody else including the health of  world, can kiss their asses. These are the kinds of deplorables we are dealing with.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 22, 2019)

BWK said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > BWK said:
> ...



what does that have to do with the thread?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 22, 2019)

BWK said:


> NotYourBody said:
> 
> 
> > BWK said:
> ...



translation you want money huh ?


----------



## 22lcidw (Jul 22, 2019)

BWK said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > Highest level in ...._Human history? _ Were they measuring the level of co2 when they were building the Pyramids? If MM global warming was fact they wouldn't call it a theory. Warming guru Al Gore predicted the end of the world by 2020 while he was making money off "carbon credits" and the crazy left picked up on it as a political issue.
> ...


When you pass gas, it is measured by seconds!


----------



## AzogtheDefiler (Jul 22, 2019)

BWK said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > BWK said:
> ...



I am Not stuck on you?


----------



## Third Party (Jul 22, 2019)

BWK said:


> Third Party said:
> 
> 
> > BWK said:
> ...


The question means you believe anything anyone tells you-geesh-that's an old saying. The rest is your over reaction to unproved theories.


----------



## whitehall (Jul 22, 2019)

BWK said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > Highest level in ...._Human history? _ Were they measuring the level of co2 when they were building the Pyramids? If MM global warming was fact they wouldn't call it a theory. Warming guru Al Gore predicted the end of the world by 2020 while he was making money off "carbon credits" and the crazy left picked up on it as a political issue.
> ...


Why do lefties continue to use the "F" bomb when they are confronted with a simple challenge? Is that how they explain the facts of life to their kids?


----------



## Dale Smith (Jul 22, 2019)

BWK said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



BWK, aka "Fuckwad", you have come to a gunfight with a "Dennis the Menace" style slingshot. In short? You have no hope of winning this debate/discussion thus  you are not going to "guilt" anyone into buying your IPCC bought and paid for "scientists" that work at the leisure of the U.N bullshit.

I know when the "Limits To Growth" agenda was first brought on the public scene, how the formation of the U.N offshoot group "Club Of Rome" piggybacked off of the ideas of the Iron Mountain Report. Maurice Strong? Ever heard of him? "Sustainable Development" ? U.N Agenda 21 that was passed at the 1992 Rio conference? Weather modification usings SAI of heavy metal nano-particulates has been global since 1997 along with ionospheric heaters using ELF waves to heat these particles to manipulate weather patterns and the jet stream.

Ever heard of the Hegelian Dialectic? Cause, Affect, Solution? Keep up your shit talking and I will bury you under an avalanche of evidence that will make you scurry away in shame. You are so fucking "small time" and I laugh at douchebag commie fucks like you that pretend to have even the slightest clue.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jul 22, 2019)

Examples of the stratispheric aerosol injection spraying program.....anyone that can look at these photos and claim that they are merely "condensation trails" is a blithering idiot. Water and soil samples have proven that unsafe levels of strontium, barium and aluminum are landing in our water and screwing up the PH balance of our soils. The cows graze in pastures that have this fallout. BTW, the patents for SAI contain these very heavy metal nano-particulates.


----------



## justoffal (Jul 23, 2019)

BWK said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > Highest level in ...._Human history? _ Were they measuring the level of co2 when they were building the Pyramids? If MM global warming was fact they wouldn't call it a theory. Warming guru Al Gore predicted the end of the world by 2020 while he was making money off "carbon credits" and the crazy left picked up on it as a political issue.
> ...



Ppm is ppm..... Time doesn't change that. Assuming a value of ppm for a period hundreds of years ago is nothing more than a best guess.

The sect of climate priests have time and again been exposed a scientific snobs who ignore input from all of the fields of science.

As far as I know is the only field of endeavor that's stubbornly continues to attempt to stand alone on its own merits only.

You're going to get a huge consensus of agreement in any cult that shares a central belief. That's why they hang around together and get all mysterious and isolated.  As the central belief grows in importance despite reality they become more and more defensive of even its most exploitable and demonstrable weaknesses.

Ergo modern-day climate priests completely ignore the fact that both poles were once tropical. They completely ignore the fact that volcanic activity both on land and under the sea exudes immeasurable amounts of CO2 that are nearly impossible to examine. They completely dismiss the fact that the sun is on a progression towards red giantism and greater heat generation.  Last but not least they continue to ignore input from the fields of astronomy and vulcanology which both have a tremendous amount to contribute to the state of the Earth's ecosystem.

No one is saying their contributions are useless they are the ones saying that everyone else's contributions are useless.

Jo


----------



## Muhammed (Jul 23, 2019)

Erinwltr said:


> Eighteen of the 19 warmest years on record for the planet have occurred since 2000,
> .


Got any proof to back up that ridiculous claim?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Put up or shut up, you brainwashed fool.


----------



## westwall (Jul 23, 2019)

BWK said:


> It was 84 degrees near the Arctic Ocean this weekend as carbon dioxide hit its highest level in human history  It was only 84 degrees in the Arctic this past weekend, eclipsing  record highs for the area. In known history that has never happened.  In the mean time, Trump and the rest of these oil butt boys, are contemplating drilling for oil in the Arctic. You think they give a shit? Or Republicans? Or some Democrats? Hell no. People, the wealthy are stealing resources for short term gain at the expense of the planet, our lives, and the creatures that live here.. And we enable this insanity. When does it stop? Other countries are moving forward with green energy plans, and we are not. When does the madness end?








Okay, I won't.   It's all a scam, and we figured it out.


----------



## Muhammed (Jul 23, 2019)

BWK said:


> You haven't argued


Please present an argument, jackass.


----------



## Roudy (Jul 23, 2019)

BWK said:


> It was 84 degrees near the Arctic Ocean this weekend as carbon dioxide hit its highest level in human history  It was only 84 degrees in the Arctic this past weekend, eclipsing  record highs for the area. In known history that has never happened.  In the mean time, Trump and the rest of these oil butt boys, are contemplating drilling for oil in the Arctic. You think they give a shit? Or Republicans? Or some Democrats? Hell no. People, the wealthy are stealing resources for short term gain at the expense of the planet, our lives, and the creatures that live here.. And we enable this insanity. When does it stop? Other countries are moving forward with green energy plans, and we are not. When does the madness end?


The Left's solution...

To Save the Planet, Kill 90 Percent of People Off, Says UT Ecologist


----------



## Roudy (Jul 23, 2019)

What I Like about the Global Warming recently updated to "Climate Change" argument is that of matter what happens, you are still right...it's gets cold, it's because of Global Warming, it heats up, its Global Warming. So when exactly is it NOT Global Warming?!  It's like being a stockbroker or real estate agent, whether people are buying, selling, losing or making money on a deal, you still come out on top!


----------



## cnm (Jul 23, 2019)

It's good to see the tards paying attention to the OP and ignoring AGW. Or deflecting. Or denying. 

Kudos.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 23, 2019)

cnm said:


> It's good to see the tards paying attention to the OP and ignoring AGW. Or deflecting. Or denying.
> 
> Kudos.


I will ask you then, since the OP can't provide it. Post us a link to ACTUAL scientific experiments that tell you how much CO2 cause x amount of warming.


----------



## Erinwltr (Jul 23, 2019)

BWK said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > BWK said:
> ...


We can wait until they die off and hope the next generation is more enlightened and gives a rats ass about the planet, but I'm not sure Earth can wait that long.


----------



## Erinwltr (Jul 23, 2019)

martybegan said:


> Erinwltr said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


Not really.  But you and a lot of folks on USMB are really good at making stuff up and claim that is what a poster meant.  It's painfully obvious you don't care about the planet.  Carry on.


----------



## cnm (Jul 23, 2019)

_Annual global temperature difference from average, 1880 to 2018. (NASA)_




Muhammed said:


> Got any proof to back up that ridiculous claim?


You'll ignore it just like you ignore the links that contained it. Just like you'll ignore it now. Oh, of course, I forgot the go to: 'fake news'.


----------



## cnm (Jul 23, 2019)

RetiredGySgt said:


> I will ask you then, since the OP can't provide it. Post us a link to ACTUAL scientific experiments that tell you how much CO2 cause x amount of warming.


Excellent denial/deflection. Kudos.

But as a matter of curiosity, do you deny the existence of black holes because no ACTUAL scientific experiments have been performed on them?


----------



## georgephillip (Jul 23, 2019)

BWK said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > BWK said:
> ...





BWK said:


> THESE REPUBLICAN JIM BOB'S DON'T CARE.


*But they care about REFUGEES?

‘High Likelihood of Human Civilization Coming to an End’ in 2050, New Report Suggests*

"The scenario warns that our current trajectory will likely lock in at least 3 degrees Celsius (C) of global heating, which in turn could trigger further amplifying feedbacks unleashing further warming. 

"This would drive the accelerating collapse of key ecosystems “including coral reef systems, the Amazon rainforest and in the Arctic.”

"The results would be devastating. 

"Some one billion people would be forced to attempt to relocate from unlivable conditions, and two billion would face scarcity of water supplies. 

"Agriculture would collapse in the sub-tropics, and food production would suffer dramatically worldwide."




Ravaged by Drought, a Honduran Village Faces a Choice: Pray for Rain or Migrate 

*"The internal cohesion of nation-states like the US and China would unravel."*


----------



## Flash (Jul 23, 2019)

RetiredGySgt said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > It's good to see the tards paying attention to the OP and ignoring AGW. Or deflecting. Or denying.
> ...




...and how much is contributed by Humans.

They can't do it.

Because they can't do it they have invented this scam and fabricate data to support it.


----------



## cnm (Jul 23, 2019)

Flash said:


> Because they can't do it they have invented this scam and fabricate data to support it.


Ah. 'Fake news'. Right on cue.

'They'. 

They're coming after you.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 23, 2019)

BWK said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Erinwltr said:
> ...



There is nothing to argue dummy....nobody cares about AGW.

Show us any concrete evidence voters care even a wit?

Links please


----------



## cnm (Jul 23, 2019)

skookerasbil said:


> There is nothing to argue dummy....nobody cares about AGW.


You've been shown that is false on multiple occasions but you can't stop your cracked record from spinning. Oh well, raving loons will ravingly loon.


----------



## Erinwltr (Jul 23, 2019)

cnm said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > Because they can't do it they have invented this scam and fabricate data to support it.
> ...


Don't forget that Obama and Hillary are coming for your guns too!  Oh wait...

cnm, great post at 174.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 23, 2019)

Where do people come up with this link between Trump and climate change action? It's so boneheaded! For eight years under Obama, how much happened on climate change action? Zero....Congress could not possibly be any more disinterested which means the voters dont give a shit. Doy.....they still dont.

And btw....dollar to a thousand stale donuts the term GREEN NEW DEAL isnt spoken once at next years DUM convention. Wont come within 1,000 miles of the convention center. Waaaaaaaaaaay too radical.

*@www.whosnotwinning.com*


----------



## RealDave (Jul 23, 2019)

martybegan said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> > It was 84 degrees near the Arctic Ocean this weekend as carbon dioxide hit its highest level in human history  It was only 84 degrees in the Arctic this past weekend, eclipsing  record highs for the area. In known history that has never happened.  In the mean time, Trump and the rest of these oil butt boys, are contemplating drilling for oil in the Arctic. You think they give a shit? Or Republicans? Or some Democrats? Hell no. People, the wealthy are stealing resources for short term gain at the expense of the planet, our lives, and the creatures that live here.. And we enable this insanity. When does it stop? Other countries are moving forward with green energy plans, and we are not. When does the madness end?
> ...


  Marty is old & will soon be dead soon so he doesn't care.

He wants others to take care of his children & grandchildren because he certainly could not care less.


----------



## RealDave (Jul 23, 2019)

skookerasbil said:


> Where do people come up with this link between Trump and climate change action? It's so boneheaded! For eight years under Obama, how much happened on climate change action? Zero....Congress could not possibly be any more disinterested which means the voters dont give a shit. Doy.....they still dont.
> 
> And btw....dollar to a thousand stale donuts the term GREEN NEW DEAL isnt spoken once at next years DUM convention. Wont come within 1,000 miles of the convention center. Waaaaaaaaaaay too radical.
> 
> *@www.whosnotwinning.com*


  Wow, what an ignorant fuck you are.

Plenty was done under Obama.  Changes in MPG requirements, changes in the EPA regulations on emissions, the Paris Accord.

So reakly, either get a fucking education or just shut the fuck up.


----------



## RealDave (Jul 23, 2019)

007 said:


> Antarctica Warmer 1,000 Years Ago… Now, *That’s* An Inconvenient Truth!


A known denier from the oil industry.


----------



## RealDave (Jul 23, 2019)

Theowl32 said:


> Spoken by stupid fucking liberals who don't do one fucking thing for the environment.
> 
> Makes you wonder why stupid fucking liberals living on the coasts are not moving in masses away from coastal regions. They aren't.
> 
> ...


  So if Democrats do nothing about the envirionment, how is Trump rolling back on obama's actions?


----------



## Erinwltr (Jul 23, 2019)

RealDave said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Where do people come up with this link between Trump and climate change action? It's so boneheaded! For eight years under Obama, how much happened on climate change action? Zero....Congress could not possibly be any more disinterested which means the voters dont give a shit. Doy.....they still dont.
> ...


I don't even read his comments anymore.  Just posting smack.


----------



## Markle (Jul 23, 2019)

BWK said:


> I already linked the truth that you have not debunked. What's your problem? You call me a liar, and I prove you wrong with links.



You said the US is the biggest polluter in the world.

That is a lie and you know it is a lie.


----------



## Markle (Jul 23, 2019)

BWK said:


> The U.S. Is the Biggest Carbon Polluter in History. It Just Walked Away From the Paris Climate Deal.
> 
> The US military is a bigger polluter than more than 100 countries combined
> 
> Anyone on this board want to contest this?



You were suckered in by a phony headline.  Your own source shows graphs at the top of the article showing we and China is far exceeding the US in the production of CO2.






Your own source states grudgingly:  "While the United States is historically responsible for more emissions than any other country, it is no longer the world’s largest single emitter of greenhouse gases. China surpassed the United States a decade ago, and its emissions today are about double the American figure. Some of China’s emissions are from the production of goods for the United States and other rich countries."

Those facts in a pie chart for your edification.





These 6 Countries Are Responsible For 60% Of CO2 Emissions

Why do you constantly LIE BWK?  That's okay, I already know, DESPERATION!


----------



## SomeDudeUDunno (Jul 23, 2019)

All the alarmists have a solid case to sue the gubmint schools for scaring their children half to death in maybe....mmmm, 10 years at most. When the doom and gloom predictions are once again proven to be bullshit.... Nobody will listen anymore.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 23, 2019)

RealDave said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Where do people come up with this link between Trump and climate change action? It's so boneheaded! For eight years under Obama, how much happened on climate change action? Zero....Congress could not possibly be any more disinterested which means the voters dont give a shit. Doy.....they still dont.
> ...



Well WoW!! Those are some real climate change action accomplishments right there!!

Meanwhile, solar is still providing less than 2% of our electricity. Wind barely 5%......w0w!!

Meanwhile, in the real world, fossil fuels *DOMINATE *and will continue to for many decades!!

Voters dont give a wit about climate change.....its the only thing that matters. It means the science isnt mattering. Hasnt for 20 years.

Oh....and the Paris Accord is dead you dummy!! Even if it was alive, those summits only achieve a fraction of the stated goals.....while China continues to open 2 coal plants/ month.

*@www.wholooksst00pidnow.com*


----------



## Markle (Jul 23, 2019)

RealDave said:


> 007 said:
> 
> 
> > Antarctica Warmer 1,000 Years Ago… Now, *That’s* An Inconvenient Truth!
> ...



How were the Vikings able to establish colonies, raise crops and herds of animals to resupply their ships on their way to North America if the earth was not warmer?  Was that warming earth due to all the coal-burning powerplants and the US with all our SUVs?


----------



## Markle (Jul 23, 2019)

SomeDudeUDunno said:


> All the alarmists have a solid case to sue the gubmint schools for scaring their children half to death in maybe....mmmm, 10 years at most. When the doom and gloom predictions are once again proven to be bullshit.... Nobody will listen anymore.



As you know, normal, intelligent people have already quit listening.  The boy (global warming believers) has cried wolf far too many times.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 23, 2019)

cnm said:


> _Annual global temperature difference from average, 1880 to 2018. (NASA)_View attachment 270601
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> ...


LOL you retard temperature has been going up for hundreds of years in 1900 they predicted a 1 degree increase by 2000. Was there global warming then? I repeat cite us a scientific study or experiment that shows x amount of CO2 raises temperature X amount.


----------



## Muhammed (Jul 23, 2019)

cnm said:


> _Annual global temperature difference from average, 1880 to 2018. (NASA)_View attachment 270601
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> ...


A graphic from the climategate fraudsters is not evidence, you easily brainwashed fool..


----------



## jc456 (Jul 23, 2019)

BWK said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> > Spoken by stupid fucking liberals who don't do one fucking thing for the environment.
> ...


how you live?  explain!  like Gore riding on private jets?  or Pelousi or any other of the rich fk demofks? Bernie's houses? his farts? oh my god the tragedy!!!


----------



## Rustic (Jul 23, 2019)

RealDave said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Where do people come up with this link between Trump and climate change action? It's so boneheaded! For eight years under Obama, how much happened on climate change action? Zero....Congress could not possibly be any more disinterested which means the voters dont give a shit. Doy.....they still dont.
> ...


Of course there is climate change, it’s just not man-made


----------



## BWK (Jul 23, 2019)

Markle said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> > I already linked the truth that you have not debunked. What's your problem? You call me a liar, and I prove you wrong with links.
> ...


Then debunk my link proving the US is the biggest polluter.


----------



## BWK (Jul 23, 2019)

Rustic said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...


Says the Stooge scientist on this board who only presents us with scientific gobbly goo.


----------



## RealDave (Jul 23, 2019)

whitehall said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...


 Why do you people lie all the time?

I'd rather spend time with a petson that says "fuck" than a liar.


----------



## BWK (Jul 23, 2019)

jc456 said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> > Theowl32 said:
> ...


 People Holding Angry Young Man In Straight Jacket Stock Photo - Getty Images  Can someone get this nut a straight jacket?


----------



## RealDave (Jul 23, 2019)

RetiredGySgt said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > It's good to see the tards paying attention to the OP and ignoring AGW. Or deflecting. Or denying.
> ...


 Fuck off with your denial bullshit.

There are too many factors to say a certain rise on CO2 will produce a certain rise in temperatures.  So you can run away in your ignorance & condemn future generations to a more difficult like because of your inability to undersatand complex things.


----------



## RealDave (Jul 23, 2019)

Flash said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > cnm said:
> ...


  I have a news flash:  You are a fucking idiot.

The planet naturally emits CO2 & naturally absorbs CO2.

Along comes the Industrial Revolution & now we have emissions my man.  These emissions push the total emitted past the amount the Earth can absorb.  This raised the CO2 concentration & this heightened the greenhouse effect & this leads to warming.

Get t yet?  Dumbass.


----------



## feduptaxpayer (Jul 23, 2019)

BWK said:


> It was 84 degrees near the Arctic Ocean this weekend as carbon dioxide hit its highest level in human history  It was only 84 degrees in the Arctic this past weekend, eclipsing  record highs for the area. In known history that has never happened.  In the mean time, Trump and the rest of these oil butt boys, are contemplating drilling for oil in the Arctic. You think they give a shit? Or Republicans? Or some Democrats? Hell no. People, the wealthy are stealing resources for short term gain at the expense of the planet, our lives, and the creatures that live here.. And we enable this insanity. When does it stop? Other countries are moving forward with green energy plans, and we are not. When does the madness end?



So, what is with all those chemtrails that the American military keeps spraying in the atmosphere over America? Could that have something to do with it? Hey, you never know.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jul 23, 2019)

BWK and all his leftards pals glossed right over my post concerning the SRM program.


----------



## BWK (Jul 23, 2019)

Markle said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> > I already linked the truth that you have not debunked. What's your problem? You call me a liar, and I prove you wrong with links.
> ...


The US produces more carbon emissions per person than China. You are confused by output of carbon, which China is in the lead. The biggest polluter per person is the US citizen which puts us as the biggest polluters in the world.  China is the most populated. But the average person does not pollute as much as the average person in the US. Therefore, the US is the biggest polluter per volume/ per individual, compared to China.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 23, 2019)

Dale Smith said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...


Yup China pollutes more but we are blamed by retards and idiots that can not even prove man is causing the warming. EVERY SINGLE prediction made by the warming crowd has proven to be false, EVERY ONE. But we should believe them NEXT time.


----------



## BWK (Jul 23, 2019)

Dale Smith said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...


It's true. Read it for yourself. Here's how US carbon pollution stacks up with the rest of the world

*The United States is the second biggest carbon-dioxide polluter after China, according to the latest data available from the World Bank. The U.S. is the biggest producer of carbon emissions on a per-person basis.*


----------



## Deplorable Yankee (Jul 23, 2019)

BWK said:


> It was 84 degrees near the Arctic Ocean this weekend as carbon dioxide hit its highest level in human history  It was only 84 degrees in the Arctic this past weekend, eclipsing  record highs for the area. In known history that has never happened.  In the mean time, Trump and the rest of these oil butt boys, are contemplating drilling for oil in the Arctic. You think they give a shit? Or Republicans? Or some Democrats? Hell no. People, the wealthy are stealing resources for short term gain at the expense of the planet, our lives, and the creatures that live here.. And we enable this insanity. When does it stop? Other countries are moving forward with green energy plans, and we are not. When does the madness end?



Weather events have nothing to do with the global climate ....unless the brainwashed nazi watermelons say so 


the AGW religion of lies  is almost as evil as islam ...ALMOST


----------



## Dale Smith (Jul 23, 2019)

BWK said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > BWK said:
> ...




CNBC??????? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## BWK (Jul 23, 2019)

Dale Smith said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


I'm waiting for the rebuttal.  Still waiting.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jul 23, 2019)

BWK said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > BWK said:
> ...



China is twice the producer of CO2 that you dumb fucks claim is "Killing the earth"....


----------



## BWK (Jul 23, 2019)

BWK said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > BWK said:
> ...


LOl! Yea, you ain't got shit.


----------



## BWK (Jul 23, 2019)

Dale Smith said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


But ha, here's a news flash for you, that you didn't get the first time. More CO2 does not necessarily equate to biggest polluters. But you lost your shit calling me a liar when you were the one who got caught with your own pants down. Now take a fuckin hike.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jul 23, 2019)

BWK said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...




I know more than you and when I have time later tonight? I am going to bitch-slap you off this thread, bitchboy. You totally ignored my post from last night because you had no answer and then wanted it buried.

So, fuck you, ya little commie sack of shit.


----------



## BWK (Jul 23, 2019)

Dale Smith said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> > BWK said:
> ...


Look at the cheap shot coward who got his ass taken out to the woodshed with the right information. Lol! Ha loser, if you had known more than me you wouldn't have needed someone to give you potty training lessons on getting out the right information. Come back when you can learn how  to stop shitting all over the seat.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 23, 2019)

BWK said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > BWK said:
> ...


LOL your entire claim is that higher CO2 causes warming and that man made CO2 is the culprit, then you claim higher CO2 emissions are not the culprit, which is you fucking LOON?


----------



## Markle (Jul 23, 2019)

BWK said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > BWK said:
> ...



I did.  With your own source.


----------



## Markle (Jul 23, 2019)

BWK said:


> The US produces more carbon emissions per person than China. You are confused by output of carbon, which China is in the lead. The biggest polluter per person is the US citizen which puts us as the biggest polluters in the world. China is the most populated. But the average person does not pollute as much as the average person in the US. Therefore, the US is the biggest polluter per volume/ per individual, compared to China.



I proved you lied and now you throw up another subject.  Why not just say, I screwed up, I am wrong?


----------



## Rustic (Jul 23, 2019)

BWK said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


----------



## Markle (Jul 23, 2019)

Dale Smith said:


> No, I showed our skies being bombarded with heavy metal nano-particulates, dumb ass.



Malarkey.

Did you know that Top Fuel Dragsters, those 11,000 hp beasts that exceed 330 mph in 1,000 feet actually have CONTRAILS from their rear wings when atmospheric conditions are right?


----------



## RealDave (Jul 23, 2019)

RetiredGySgt said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



Wow, you are one stupid fuck.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jul 23, 2019)

Markle said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > No, I showed our skies being bombarded with heavy metal nano-particulates, dumb ass.
> ...




Those trails don't last for hours....now do they?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 23, 2019)

RealDave said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > BWK said:
> ...


Did you bother to read what he wrote? Why am I asking you obviously didn't.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 23, 2019)

BWK said:


> It was 84 degrees near the Arctic Ocean this weekend as carbon dioxide hit its highest level in human history  It was only 84 degrees in the Arctic this past weekend, eclipsing  record highs for the area. In known history that has never happened.  In the mean time, Trump and the rest of these oil butt boys, are contemplating drilling for oil in the Arctic. You think they give a shit? Or Republicans? Or some Democrats? Hell no. People, the wealthy are stealing resources for short term gain at the expense of the planet, our lives, and the creatures that live here.. And we enable this insanity. When does it stop? Other countries are moving forward with green energy plans, and we are not. When does the madness end?



* Trump and the rest of these oil butt boys, are contemplating drilling for oil in the Arctic. *

Excellent idea.
Only stupid twats like Obama think finding more oil doesn't make the price go down.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 23, 2019)

BWK said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > BWK said:
> ...



and concrete companies are the third, so what is your point?


----------



## Markle (Jul 23, 2019)

Dale Smith said:


> Those trails don't last for hours....now do they?



Nope, and they're also not made by a vehicle which weighs 875,000 pounds, has four engines with 47,000 pounds of thrust EACH or is flying at 45.000 feet where the temperature is minus 69 degrees Fahrenheit.  Fly this garbage back over to the other weirdo's Conspiracy forum.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 24, 2019)

Wow...

233 posts and BWK hasn't proven anything...

No link to man causing the temperature rise. No link to man causing the increase of CO2... And no link proving CO2 is having any effect on our atmosphere..

What has he provided?  conjecture and logical fallacy.... nothing more..


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 24, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Wow...
> 
> 233 posts and BWK hasn't proven anything...
> 
> ...


Science states that CO2 follows rising temperature. It does not cause it. It also states that the effect it has in the atmosphere to raise any temperature is diminishing with increases in CO2. NO scientist has EVERY done an experiment or study to provide any data on how much CO2 effects the heating of the atmosphere EVER. And on top of that EVERY SINGLE prediction made by the warmers has been false NOT one has proven to be correct EVER. But we are to believe the next prediction with no hard science to back it up will be true.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jul 24, 2019)

BWK said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > BWK said:
> ...



Yeah, you are such a "bad ass". I remember your post about how it was good for "Trump supporters" to be revealed so they could be "smited"....as if a commie pussy like yourself would pose even a modicum of danger to anti-commies like myself. 

(snicker)

Now, how would paying a carbon tax to the very banking oligarchs that own the big oil companies help "cool" the planet and save all humanity? No leftard has been able to explain that one and since they set this up as a world wide petroleum based economy where they could the energy sources? You are an idiot if you believe that they would ever give that power up. As I stated earlier, this whole "man-made global warming" scam has it roots going back over 50 fucking years ago....so  STFU, turn around and face the blackboard as I educate you....


“It may be, for instance, that gross pollution of the environment can eventually replace the possibility of mass destruction by nuclear weapons as the principal apparent threat to the survival of the species. Poisoning of the air, and of the principal sources of food and water supply, is already well advanced, and at first glance would seem promising in this respect; it constitutes a threat that can be dealt with only through social organization and political power. But from present indications it will be a generation to a generation and a half before environmental pollution, however severe, will be sufficiently menacing on a global scale, to offer a possible basis for a solution. (Iron Mountain Report 1967)

The Club of Rome was founded at David Rockefeller's estate  in Bellagio, Italy. It was yet another NGO (non governmental organization) "think tank group like the CFR, Tri-Lateral Commission, Chatham House aka Royal Institute For International Affairs, the Bilderburg Group and Committee of 300. The Club of Rome was a "consultant" to the U.N and they are the entity providing the funding to the IPCC that works at the leisure of the U.N. The Club of Rome suggested that the "Earth Summit" be held in Rio de Janerio, Brazil in 1992 where Agenda 21 was put in place...i.e "Agenda for the 21st Century" and the plans for "Sustainable Development" was put in place signed off by Skull and Bones member George H.W Bush and was later further signed off on by E.O by Bill "drop trou" Clinton.

_“The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”_ —The First Global Revolution, Alexander King, Co-Founder of the Club of Rome, 1991

"What if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the Earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? The group's conclusion is 'no'. The rich countries won't do it. They won't change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"
 Maurice Strong, Club of Rome member, 1992

Developed and benefited from the unsustainable patterns of production and consumption which have produced our present dilemma. It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class-involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing-are not sustainable. A shift is necessary toward lifestyles less geared to environmentally damaging consumption patterns" Maurice Strong

Strengthening the role the United Nations can play...will require serious examination of the need to extend into the international arena the rule of law and the principle of taxation to finance agreed actions which provide the basis for governance at the national level. But this will not come about easily. Resistance to such changes is deeply entrenched. They will come about not through the embrace of full blown world government, but as a careful and pragmatic response to compelling imperatives and the inadequacies of alternatives.

Maurice Strong

Climate Change Activist Admits: Being Green "Requires the End of Capitalism" | Ryan McMaken


----------



## August West (Jul 24, 2019)

Markle said:


> August West said:
> 
> 
> > Where did you get the idea that other countries aren`t lowering their carbon footprint? China`s goal is to ban the sale of internal combustion engines by 2040 and they`re one of the world leaders in wind and solar power today. When China says no more fossil fueled cars the rest of the world will follow because China is the #1 market for auto sales today.
> ...


I did my research and presented you with some facts whereas you`ve presented nothing. While China has plans to eliminate the sale of internal combustion engines our president thinks our cars aren`t burning enough gas. It`s not news that China is still building coal-powered plants. Did you know that China is a very large country with a lot of people living there? I haven`t surveyed all the Chinese to see how many are using animal dung for cooking and heating. The Chinese are moving in the right direction while we`re trying to gut environmental protection regulations so we can see the rivers on fire again.


----------



## fncceo (Jul 24, 2019)

August West said:


> Did you know that China is a very large country with a lot of people living there?



Wow, you really did do the research.  Did you even find out what language they speak?


----------



## Mindful (Jul 24, 2019)

Dale Smith said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



There are loads of those in the skies over my building.

In Europe.


----------



## Mindful (Jul 24, 2019)

August West said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > August West said:
> ...



Did they give up foot  binding?


----------



## August West (Jul 24, 2019)

fncceo said:


> August West said:
> 
> 
> > Did you know that China is a very large country with a lot of people living there?
> ...


Wow, you`re really too stupid to recognize sarcasm? Yes you are. For the record, China has 56 ethnic groups speaking 297 languages. Even Gomer Bush knows how to use "The Google". Are you dumber than him?
What Languages Are Spoken in China?


----------



## RealDave (Jul 24, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> > It was 84 degrees near the Arctic Ocean this weekend as carbon dioxide hit its highest level in human history  It was only 84 degrees in the Arctic this past weekend, eclipsing  record highs for the area. In known history that has never happened.  In the mean time, Trump and the rest of these oil butt boys, are contemplating drilling for oil in the Arctic. You think they give a shit? Or Republicans? Or some Democrats? Hell no. People, the wealthy are stealing resources for short term gain at the expense of the planet, our lives, and the creatures that live here.. And we enable this insanity. When does it stop? Other countries are moving forward with green energy plans, and we are not. When does the madness end?
> ...



So, you think they rush in, pump as fast as they can & put it all in the marketplace at once.

OPEC - get educated.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 24, 2019)

Dale Smith said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...



*They certainly didn't leave those kind of "condensation trails" in the 60's, 70's, 80's and up to the mid 90's.*

Liar.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 24, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > BWK said:
> ...



*So, you think they rush in, pump as fast as they can & put it all in the marketplace at once.*

No.

So you think drilling for more oil doesn't reduce prices? Why was Obama such a moron?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 24, 2019)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Wow...
> ...


Correct:
The Log of CO2 is what is baseline for warming the earth should be sustaining, but it is not. We are seeing just <1/2 of the LOG warming expected.  This means our atmosphere is acting as a dampener and the predictions of the alarmist are crap. 

The OP is clueless that our Arctic has been ice free 5 times in our current Holocene (the last 14,000 years) 

It is really amazing how little these people know and how easily duped they are.


----------



## RealDave (Jul 24, 2019)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > BWK said:
> ...


 Ain't you the dumbass.  

It has been proven.  CO2 levels are rising & the culprit is man.


----------



## RealDave (Jul 24, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Who knew there was a shortage.  Obama said we do not need to drilling on Federal lands.  Production was up under Obama.


----------



## Markle (Jul 24, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Who knew there was a shortage. Obama said we do not need to drilling on Federal lands. Production was up under Obama.



Yes, production was up under failed former President Barack Hussein Obama in SPITE of his efforts.  Production increased drastically due primarily to fracking which Obama prohibited on federal land but was allowed and exploded on private and state-owned property.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 24, 2019)

RealDave said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Dale Smith said:
> ...


LOL there is no actual evidence that CO2 raises temperature by much. In fact science states that as CO2 rises its effect on warming is diminished.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 24, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



*Who knew there was a shortage.*

There has to be a shortage of oil for an increased supply to reduce prices? Are you sure?

* Obama said we do not need to drilling on Federal lands.*

He also said we can't drill our way to lower prices. He said lots of stupid shit.

*Production was up under Obama.*

What did he do to increase our production? List some specifics.


----------



## cnm (Jul 24, 2019)

Muhammed said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > _Annual global temperature difference from average, 1880 to 2018. (NASA)_View attachment 270601
> ...


Good denial. Kudos.


----------



## cnm (Jul 24, 2019)

RetiredGySgt said:


> LOL there is no actual evidence that CO2 raises temperature by much.


Now there's a rigid scientific statement.


----------



## Muhammed (Jul 24, 2019)

cnm said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > cnm said:
> ...


You are just another brainwashed climategate denier.


----------



## cnm (Jul 24, 2019)

RetiredGySgt said:


> And on top of that EVERY SINGLE prediction made by the warmers has been false NOT one has proven to be correct EVER.


Global temperature was predicted to rise, it has risen. Do you deny that?






No, you'll pretend you haven't seen it.


----------



## cnm (Jul 24, 2019)

The US is the largest contributor of CO2 to the world.

_Ranking as of the start of 2019:

1) US – 397GtCO2
2) CN – 214Gt
3) fmr USSR – 180
4) DE – 90
5) UK – 77
6) JP – 58
7) IN – 51
8) FR – 37
9) CA – 32
10) PL – 27_​
https://www.vox.com


----------



## cnm (Jul 24, 2019)

Muhammed said:


> You are just another brainwashed climategate denier.


Just like NASA, whose data you deny.


----------



## martybegan (Jul 24, 2019)

BWK said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > BWK said:
> ...



And the "do what tell you to do (but not what we actually do, peasants)" matra of the progressive just shows how either ignorant you are or fascist you are.

You are either a thug or a useful idiot.


----------



## martybegan (Jul 24, 2019)

otto105 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > BWK said:
> ...



Are you advocating murder, in abeyance of the board rules?


----------



## martybegan (Jul 24, 2019)

Erinwltr said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Erinwltr said:
> ...



"Care about the planet"

As George Carlin used to day, the planet will be fine, it's the people that have to adjust.

I'd rather have to adjust to any changes than give more power to government.


----------



## martybegan (Jul 24, 2019)

RealDave said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > BWK said:
> ...



I bet I outlive you, oxygen thief.

And what I don't want to leave future generations is government that thinks banning straws is a viable reaction to a given problem, or a government elite that will always have things like air conditions and freedom to live how they want to live as they oppress the rest of us.


----------



## martybegan (Jul 24, 2019)

BWK said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Still here, twinkle-tits.


----------



## Erinwltr (Jul 24, 2019)

martybegan said:


> Erinwltr said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...




Well, I sincerely appreciate your point.  And George Carlin.  Love the guy.

Had he lived long enough to see this. 

GC modified.  the planet isn't fine, it's the people that have not adjusted.  Just a thought.


----------



## Erinwltr (Jul 24, 2019)

martybegan said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


marty, go to fucking bed and sleep it off.  Fuck dude. Or take your meds.


----------



## Dale Smith (Jul 24, 2019)

Erinwltr said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > BWK said:
> ...




Go fuck yourself, erin..... you have nothing of worth.


----------



## Erinwltr (Jul 24, 2019)

Dale Smith said:


> Erinwltr said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...




"Pay no attention to man made climate change folks"'

And what was the OP about, dale?


----------



## Dale Smith (Jul 24, 2019)

Erinwltr said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> > Erinwltr said:
> ...



I believe that I have done more than an adequate job showing that the OP and dipshits like yourself are wrong.


----------



## martybegan (Jul 24, 2019)

Erinwltr said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Erinwltr said:
> ...



The planet endures, and humanity can adjust. better than than allow government to lower our standards of living "for our own good"


----------



## martybegan (Jul 24, 2019)

Erinwltr said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > BWK said:
> ...



Stop white knighting for that useless hack.


----------



## Markle (Jul 24, 2019)

cnm said:


> The US is the largest contributor of CO2 to the world.
> 
> _Ranking as of the start of 2019:
> 
> ...


 
Personally, I don't see the relevance of the total emissions produced since 1750.

Should we not be concerned about today?


----------



## Markle (Jul 24, 2019)

cnm said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > You are just another brainwashed climategate denier.
> ...



Denied for good reason.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 24, 2019)

cnm said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > LOL there is no actual evidence that CO2 raises temperature by much.
> ...


Prove me wrong LIST and link to ACTUAL experiments that show x amount of CO2 raises temperature X amount. Cause so far we have not seen much of a rise.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 24, 2019)

cnm said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > And on top of that EVERY SINGLE prediction made by the warmers has been false NOT one has proven to be correct EVER.
> ...


Global temperature was predicted to rise in 1900 and has been for some centuries.


----------



## MisterBeale (Jul 24, 2019)

Skip to minute 6:45


ClintTorrez on Twitter

Winter monsoons became stronger during geomagnetic reversal: Revealing the impact of cosmic rays on the Earth's climate

NO EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE FOR THE SIGNIFICANT ANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf

Atmospheric physicist, MIT Professor of Meteorology and former IPCC lead author Richard S. Lindzen joins us to discuss the state of the climate change debate, the lack of evidence for catastrophic warming and what the science really tells us.
Interview 255 – Dr. Richard Lindzen  : The Corbett Report

UN Warning: Just 3 YEARS Left to Save the Earth!  : The Corbett Report

Three years to safeguard our climate

World has three years left to stop dangerous climate change, warn experts

Just 96 months to save world, says Prince Charles

Prince Charles exclusive: We must tackle climate change

Prince Charles says "next 18 months will decide" climate change success


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 24, 2019)

cnm said:


> The US is the largest contributor of CO2 to the world.
> 
> _Ranking as of the start of 2019:
> 
> ...



*The US is the largest contributor of CO2 to the world.*

We're not the top emitter this year. We won't be the top emitter next year.


----------



## otto105 (Jul 24, 2019)

martybegan said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


You 


Was the poster previous to mine?


----------



## Deplorable Yankee (Jul 24, 2019)

If only we could tax everyone to death, redistribute wealth to the 3rd world ,commit to crushing regulations , and give our global competitors HUGE advatages in so many industries THEN and only THEN  only then can we say we've truly accepted the "settled  science " into our hearts .........ANd change the planetary climate system 

why are you science deniers so stupid ?

Go to BOSTON U and get an economics degree !


----------



## Markle (Jul 24, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > The US is the largest contributor of CO2 to the world.
> ...


----------



## martybegan (Jul 24, 2019)

otto105 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...



I made an inference. you explicitly stated taking out so called "deniers"


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 24, 2019)

Erinwltr said:


> Eighteen of the 19 warmest years on record for the planet have occurred since 2000, and we keep observing these highly unusual and often record-breaking high temperatures.
> 
> They won’t stop soon, but cuts to greenhouse emissions would eventually slow them down.
> 
> Thing that gets me is that we have the ability to stop this or at least drastically slow it.



The US cut CO2 emissions back to mid 1990's levels in the past 8 years...  I doubt you KNOW this... But it was due to shifts to Nat Gas...  Which your tribe FOUGHT furiously to stop.. And DESPITE the efforts of the Obama Admin to stop this change, the fracking was done and the pipelines are getting built.... 

You have no real alternatives to nuclear, hydro, fossil... Wind/Solar are SUPPLEMENTS, not 24/7/365 alternatives... 

As far as touting one day record highs ANYWHERE -- it"s not science.. And Archangelsk is BARELY arctic.. It's mid Sweden and Finland and BARELY the southern tip of Greenland.. It's also very hard to find RECORD temps for this isolated place.. So it's hard to tell what and when the PREVIOUS records happened...


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 24, 2019)

Wry Catcher said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> > It was 84 degrees near the Arctic Ocean this weekend as carbon dioxide hit its highest level in human history  It was only 84 degrees in the Arctic this past weekend, eclipsing  record highs for the area. In known history that has never happened.  In the mean time, Trump and the rest of these oil butt boys, are contemplating drilling for oil in the Arctic. You think they give a shit? Or Republicans? Or some Democrats? Hell no. People, the wealthy are stealing resources for short term gain at the expense of the planet, our lives, and the creatures that live here.. And we enable this insanity. When does it stop? Other countries are moving forward with green energy plans, and we are not. When does the madness end?
> ...



See my post above Dufus... America is doing their part to curb CO2 emissions. WITHOUT govt direction and IN SPITE of govt interference.. We've done more than most of the countries still signed on to Kyoto...


----------



## Lastamender (Jul 24, 2019)

BWK said:


> It was 84 degrees near the Arctic Ocean this weekend as carbon dioxide hit its highest level in human history  It was only 84 degrees in the Arctic this past weekend, eclipsing  record highs for the area. In known history that has never happened.  In the mean time, Trump and the rest of these oil butt boys, are contemplating drilling for oil in the Arctic. You think they give a shit? Or Republicans? Or some Democrats? Hell no. People, the wealthy are stealing resources for short term gain at the expense of the planet, our lives, and the creatures that live here.. And we enable this insanity. When does it stop? Other countries are moving forward with green energy plans, and we are not. When does the madness end?


As soon as people like you die off like old white men. It is a scheme to make the richer richer and redistribute wealth to lower the standard of living world wide. An attempt to relegate individual rights in favor of the collective and a sure way to world government and totalitarianism.

It is a scam. And a pretty good one.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 24, 2019)

Erinwltr said:


> Eighteen of the 19 warmest years on record for the planet have occurred since 2000, and we keep observing these highly unusual and often record-breaking high temperatures.
> 
> They won’t stop soon, but cuts to greenhouse emissions would eventually slow them down.
> 
> Thing that gets me is that we have the ability to stop this or at least drastically slow it.



This 18 of the last 20 years stuff is NOT the complete story.. There USED to be perfect harmony between our satellite surface temp measurement and the 40,000 thermometer method used by NOAA and even NASA itself (go figure why Goddard Institute of Space Science at NASA still prefers 40,000 thermometers to their expensive space weather fleet) ....

But for past 10 years, NOAA has fucked with their methodology and even GONE BACK TO 18th Century "ship intake temperatures" to get a much different result...

I'll take the satellite fleet... WITHOUT the 200 analysts changing temperature TODAY from 1930s...






Satellite record (by UAH and RSS independently) say the NOAA temp graph is wrong.. Go LOOK.. Don't sit on your asses.. GET INVOLVED..

First thing you'll notice is that NOAA has "processed out" the EL NINO of 1998 and the more recent 2015 one.. IT USED TO BE THERE in the NOAA chart... Go figure out how it got "lost".... El NINOS DO raise the "global average" -- wtf are they in the NOAA chart????

*No 18 of past 20 years setting record YEARLY highs*... Not according to 20th century technology....


----------



## Muhammed (Jul 24, 2019)

cnm said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > You are just another brainwashed climategate denier.
> ...


NASA denies their own data.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 24, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



Impressive.. You've done some work.. "man" recently is about 5% of that entire "carbon cycle" Nature outweighs it by 20 to 1... And so far, OF that 5%, nature absorbs in excess sink capability.. Furthermore, what's CHARGED to "man" is highly debatable.. Since we get charged with livestock emissions that simply replaced the endless herds of buffalo and other big grazers that got displaced by domestic farming.. 

A doubling of CO2 in the atmos causes about a 1DegC change in surface temperature.. THis is the RAW warming power of CO2 as gas in the atmos.. WITHOUT the more hysterical GW adjunct theories about "runaway feedbacks, accelerations (not in evidence) and trigger temps from which the planet just trashes itself to death... 

The 415 ppm today IS NOT EVEN a doubling since we started the Industrial Revolution at about 280 ppm.. Will be 2050 or so til we get there... That's 1degC for a 280ppm increase... Then to get the NEXT 1degC, we'd have to load the atmos with TWICE AS MUCH CO2 to get the same effect.. Because CO2 warming power is quite saturated and does not LINEARLY increase temp... So we'd need 560 additional ppm to get to 2 deg.. 

THIS is the basic science without the exaggeration, speculation, phony modeling and hype. And this is what I believe is true.. By 2050 the temp anomaly due to anthro CO2 will be about 1degC... Anything above or below that is natural variance... And it will probably be WAY past 2100 until the anthropomorphic part of climate change accounts for 2DegC... 

While the hyped SUPERPOWERS of CO2 that SOME climate scientists believe in are creating models that predict 2100 temp anomalies anywhere between 4 and 8 DegC..  That's not likely IMO....


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 24, 2019)

cnm said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > And on top of that EVERY SINGLE prediction made by the warmers has been false NOT one has proven to be correct EVER.
> ...


LOL

It was supposed to have risen 8.0 deg C, not 0.67 Deg C as we have seen by empirical evidence.  Now prove that the warming was caused by man and not natural variation.....


----------



## Dale Smith (Jul 25, 2019)

So, some of my posts on this thread were deleted by a moderator.... "Your post in the thread Pay no attention to man made climate change folks was deleted. Reason: feuds over off topic chemtrail shit and all personal content posts"

 And then this beauty " Reason: Dont do chem trails in GW threads..."

My reply? Then ban me from this forum...it's not like I give a flying fuck. I don't live here like some of you do. The truth isn't pretty but it's truth nonetheless. This forum is short on those that talk about the ugly facts in lieu of pretty little lies where partisanship rules. I don't NEED this forum at all.


----------



## justoffal (Jul 25, 2019)

BWK said:


> It was 84 degrees near the Arctic Ocean this weekend as carbon dioxide hit its highest level in human history  It was only 84 degrees in the Arctic this past weekend, eclipsing  record highs for the area. In known history that has never happened.  In the mean time, Trump and the rest of these oil butt boys, are contemplating drilling for oil in the Arctic. You think they give a shit? Or Republicans? Or some Democrats? Hell no. People, the wealthy are stealing resources for short term gain at the expense of the planet, our lives, and the creatures that live here.. And we enable this insanity. When does it stop? Other countries are moving forward with green energy plans, and we are not. When does the madness end?


Record cold for Southeast US





10:55 AM - Jul 24, 2019


----------



## Flash (Jul 25, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Flash said:
> ...




...and that my friends is a great summary of why the Environmental Wackos have to fabricate data and why none of their predictions ever come true.  Because AGW is a nothing burger.


----------



## RealDave (Jul 25, 2019)

Flash said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


 Ad that my friend is a stupid assfuck who will condemn yout children & grandchildren to a more difficult life due to their ignorance.


----------



## RealDave (Jul 25, 2019)

justoffal said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> > It was 84 degrees near the Arctic Ocean this weekend as carbon dioxide hit its highest level in human history  It was only 84 degrees in the Arctic this past weekend, eclipsing  record highs for the area. In known history that has never happened.  In the mean time, Trump and the rest of these oil butt boys, are contemplating drilling for oil in the Arctic. You think they give a shit? Or Republicans? Or some Democrats? Hell no. People, the wealthy are stealing resources for short term gain at the expense of the planet, our lives, and the creatures that live here.. And we enable this insanity. When does it stop? Other countries are moving forward with green energy plans, and we are not. When does the madness end?
> ...


 Climate change / global warming does not mean everywhere will just be a couple degrees warmer every day.

Average global temperatures.  Some areas will be lots warmer and some not.  There can be really hot times & really cold times.  Hence the word "average"

Climsate change is more than temperatures.  It is changes in precipitation.  It is changes in the seasons.

Keep running around on cold days & screaming AGW is a hoax proving just how fucking stupid you really are.


----------



## RealDave (Jul 25, 2019)

Dale Smith said:


> So, some of my posts on this thread were deleted by a moderator.... "Your post in the thread Pay no attention to man made climate change folks was deleted. Reason: feuds over off topic chemtrail shit and all personal content posts"
> 
> And then this beauty " Reason: Dont do chem trails in GW threads..."
> 
> My reply? Then ban me from this forum...it's not like I give a flying fuck. I don't live here like some of you do. The truth isn't pretty but it's truth nonetheless. This forum is short on those that talk about the ugly facts in lieu of pretty little lies where partisanship rules. I don't NEED this forum at all.


 Take your Chem Trail bullshit & stasrt your own thread.


----------



## RealDave (Jul 25, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


  NO WHERE  was it predicted to rise 8 C  by now.  

You god damn assholes really need to get a fucking education.

We know for a fact that man is responsible for the rise in CO2 levels and we know that means a heightened greenhouse effect

What natural cause do you have?


----------



## RealDave (Jul 25, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Flash said:
> ...




You are a fucking idiot.

What percent of CO2 in the atmosphere comes from man is irrelevant.

What is relevant is that the amount man has added through emissions pushed the total CO2 emissions over the amount the Earth removes.  Thereby raising the level.

You asssfucks have no logic whatsover.

Then, being a stupids fuck, claim that doubling the CO2 concentration adds one degree.  Really?  So if the level now is 400, we can increase it to 800 & only get one degree warmer?  Jesus fuck, buddy, how stupid can you get. produces.  An example would be man's efforts causes warming that exposes & thaws  the tundra & that causes a massive release of CO2.

We can limit the increae but we have to drastically reduce emissions to getg there.

Evidently, before we can dfo that, we have to overcome the crowd of dumbasses like you so action can be taken.

Nothing like a bunch of uneducated people telling scientists that they are wrong.


How much it rises goes beyond what man


----------



## RealDave (Jul 25, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > BWK said:
> ...


 
There are plenty of laws that called fr reduced emissions.


----------



## justoffal (Jul 25, 2019)

Dale Smith said:


> So, some of my posts on this thread were deleted by a moderator.... "Your post in the thread Pay no attention to man made climate change folks was deleted. Reason: feuds over off topic chemtrail shit and all personal content posts"
> 
> And then this beauty " Reason: Dont do chem trails in GW threads..."
> 
> My reply? Then ban me from this forum...it's not like I give a flying fuck. I don't live here like some of you do. The truth isn't pretty but it's truth nonetheless. This forum is short on those that talk about the ugly facts in lieu of pretty little lies where partisanship rules. I don't NEED this forum at all.



Some of the micromanagement here is less than neutral.

Jo


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 25, 2019)

RealDave said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


And yet YOU can not cite a single proven experiment that shows other wise.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 25, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > cnm said:
> ...


Ok you lying little fuck here ya go..

IPCC CLAIMS; Temperatures to rise 0.3-4.8 C this century, UN panel says

"A UN panel said Friday it was more certain than ever that humans were causing global warming and predicted temperatures would rise *by 0.3 to 4.8 degrees Celsius* (*0.5-8.6 degrees Fahrenheit*) this century."

As for natural items... The CLOUD experiment shows how clouds regulate the temperature on the planet and far exceed anything man could do in time spans of weeks, not years or months..

Your beloved man made crap is total bullshit of the highest order and you still do not have a verified and credible link that man is causing anything.

Thanks for showing us you have no grasp of how the system works and your faith is all you have..


----------



## otto105 (Jul 25, 2019)

martybegan said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...



Yeah, I didn't state where.


----------



## otto105 (Jul 25, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...




You don't have to have faith to believe in science, but you do have to have it to deny it.


----------



## martybegan (Jul 25, 2019)

otto105 said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...



Dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge.


----------



## otto105 (Jul 25, 2019)

martybegan said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...




Don't know those places.


----------



## RealDave (Jul 25, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



You said this:  "It was supposed to have risen 8.0 deg C, not 0.67 Deg C as we have seen by empirical evidence"


You said  it suposed to risen 8 degree  totally ignoring they were talking the year 2100.

So Mr Assfuck, how is that prediction false?


----------



## RealDave (Jul 25, 2019)

RetiredGySgt said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Experiments have proven the greenhouse effect.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 25, 2019)

Flash said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



It's just shy of a nothing burger.. There IS an effect.. The problem is that GW is not just ONE question.. It's many questions and theories.. Some are better than others.. And it's the CATASTROPHIC theories that have lit the flames of social/political confrontation.. Most of those are NOT "settled science"... But there is an effect assuming the CO2 doubling by (say) 2050 is "somewhat" attributable to man..


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 25, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



One of things about GW/CC projections and predictions is that they have been a moving target since the 80s.. Key guesses at critical constants like "climate sensitivity" that determines the conversion of heat forcing to surface temperature have been revised CONSTANTLY DOWNWARDS since the start.

And it used to be that there would MONTHLY "modeling papers" predicting future temperatures and rates of rise.. Those started disappearing (or got very rare) about 2005 because the modeling failing just 10 or 15 years in....

So -- how about you get a grip, stop trying to panic yourself and the herd --- and TELL US what the Global Mean Anonomaly Surface Temperature (GMAST) will BE in 2100 -- using the MOST RECENT ACADEMIC sources you can find.  And provide the following...

1) The assumptions USED for that number about Worldwide carbon emission for the 80 year period.

2) The VARIANCE on that number or +/- range.

3) The TYPE of model they used and whether it's been "back-tested"...

In YOUR lifetime, the temp anomaly has risen by about 0.6DegC +/- about 0.15DegC (depending on your age).. This is FAR below the initial predictions that got this circus started.. And where you LIVE, the VARIANCE in temperature on any day of the year is PROBABLY in the range of +/- 8DegF... Which is a statistical expectation that the NORMAL range of high temps is SEVEN times HIGHER than the 1.1DegF of "GW" that you've experienced...

A little perspective will keep your panties drier.....


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 25, 2019)

RealDave said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


Then cite them Link to them. Then highlight the section that shows the amount of CO2 needed to cause it. Cause science says CO2 has a diminishing effect on rising temperature and Flat just posted you need to double the CO2 for a one degree rise and then double it again for the next one degree.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 25, 2019)

RetiredGySgt said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



The GHouse effect is not currently refutable. If you've camped in the desert at night, you'd FEEL IT when a cloud deck comes in and warms the surface by MANY degrees.. That's a "colder object" retarding the heat loss to the sky.. 

The Earth ALWAYS loses heat to the sky.. That's the net transfer of heat. But having GHouse gases is what keeps you from being a popsicle in a matter of hours..

Some things can be calculated from Basic Chemistry/Physics/Geometry. They are mathematical proofs that don't NEED a large scale, planet sized experiment to prove...


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 25, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> "A UN panel said Friday it was more certain than ever that humans were causing global warming and predicted temperatures would rise *by 0.3 to 4.8 degrees Celsius* (*0.5-8.6 degrees Fahrenheit*) this century."



Gee thanks IPCC -- with that range from NOTHING_Burger to CALAMITY, that's NOT "settled science".... That's the point I was making to RealDave above... And that's the problem.. 

Because ANY actual result in that range is "likely" and THAT is NOT sufficient guidance to send our economies back to the Stone Age.. EVEN IF --- we could.... 

Furthermore, what's NOT STATED in that article is EQUALLY important.. What WAS the "co2 emission assumptions" that were used for THAT number.. And does the same modeling "back project" accurately? 


There is no adequate consensus.. Because a consensus is on ONE question at a time. And GW/CC has about 100 key questions.. So there is no "general" consensus on ALL of it...


----------



## otto105 (Jul 25, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > "A UN panel said Friday it was more certain than ever that humans were causing global warming and predicted temperatures would rise *by 0.3 to 4.8 degrees Celsius* (*0.5-8.6 degrees Fahrenheit*) this century."
> ...




GW/CC have no scientific consensus?


What planet are you on?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 25, 2019)

otto105 said:


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



What question is that consensus on? Because a scientific consensus requires a VERY LIMITED AND SPECIFIC question.. That's how this sciency works.... 

State the SPECIFIC question this supposed "consensus" is on.. *And realize that you need to ask a HUNDRED questions to get enough consensus on climate change to even ponder future public policies.*... 

Like "what's the temperature anomaly GONNA BE in 2100" ????????? 

I just showed that there is NO CONSENSUS on that one worth turning everything inside out....


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 25, 2019)

otto105 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



Most of what the media and the politicos use to spook the lemmings  is NOT GW science.. It's purposeful exaggeration and misinterinpretation of the ACTUAL science.. And too many of YOU -- take that crap "on faith"...

Even GW scientists say that.. Best set of "opinion studies" on what climate scientists believe is the 120 question multiple polls done by Bray and von Storch.. CLEARLY these scientists believe the public has been misinformed by the media and politicos...

If you can't see the consensus on THIS GW question (#113 out of about 130 "consensus questions")  -- I'll help you out...


----------



## otto105 (Jul 25, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...




You need to ask a 100 questions to believe that GW/CC is not happening?

And just what is "turning everything inside out" supposed to mean? Is that like the day some ape discovered fire and an ape you asked 100 questions before acknowledging its reality?


----------



## otto105 (Jul 25, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...




Nope, not even close.

Let me help you out...  Surveys of scientists' views on climate change - Wikipedia


----------



## RealDave (Jul 25, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Catastrophic results in areas of the globe are predicted & possible.

The worst predictions have the premise that  we do nothing to curb emissions & made prior to any action being done.

For example, if we do what Trump & you assfuck deniers want, bad shit will certainly happen.

If we opt to act to reduce emission, these catastrophic results can be lessened.

The settled science is that increasing CO2 levels will cause warming & if we do not act, results could be catastrophic.  

But hey, sit on your fast ass & send your children & grandchildsren to a more difficult life because you're a fucking idiot.


----------



## RealDave (Jul 25, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > "A UN panel said Friday it was more certain than ever that humans were causing global warming and predicted temperatures would rise *by 0.3 to 4.8 degrees Celsius* (*0.5-8.6 degrees Fahrenheit*) this century."
> ...


   There is adequate consensus to call for action.  Show me hpw many climatologist are suggesting we do nothing  because we can continue what we were doing 0 years ago with no negative results.

The science say it takes many decades for the Earth to absorb all this extra CO2 to reduce or slow warmng.

Your plan is to ignore it & wait until we are all fucked & then we can't do anything.

You pretend know-it-alls are just ridiculous.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 25, 2019)

RealDave said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Flash said:
> ...



Why are you assfuck warmers against nuclear power?


----------



## 22lcidw (Jul 25, 2019)

RealDave said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Flash said:
> ...


Don't believe it.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 25, 2019)

otto105 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...




You didn't answer my question of what YOU are claiming has consensus.. And YES, there are over a hundred CRITICAL questions that must be asked and have consensus before your minions of morons go around haranguing everyone about "what's to be done about it".... 

Knowing what fraction of the MINUTE warming that has occurred is due to anthropogenic Co2 emissions does NOT GUIDE the solution without KNOWING what the projected temperature in 2100 is gonna be.. Similarly, you need to know how much confidence is in the modeling that is the root of the projections, what assumptions drive the models and how accurate the estimates of critical climate variables are actually known..


Did you understand REAL CONSENSUS on the very limited question of whether the PUBLIC was understanding what climate science ACTUALLY says? By a LARGE MAJORITY, climate scientists agree that the public knowledge of what the science is warped and distorted... 

You're one of those haranguers... Too lazy to THINK like a scientist, and too politically rabid to have a conversation with...


----------



## Kilroy2 (Jul 25, 2019)

I believe the scientist as man can affect his environment.  Nonrenewable energy will eventually be gone and Renewable energy is the source of light that will keep it lit. There is a consensus with scientist about global warming.  Just because people do not understand it does not mean that its not real. Just because man who has been at it for a short time may not always get it right , does not mean that the original premise was incorrect. 

Nature has its mechanism for warming and cooling. The question is as the number of people increase on the planet and they use up resources. How can people not affect it.   

Coal is hard rock but its man who burns it and changes it structure releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Yes it is present in the atmosphere at a level set by nature but Man has changed this equation and balance.

Scientist monitors it and tells us the probable outcome  Is science right well if they have enough data and can make predictions on this data 
Science is trial and error. 

Still  the weatherman in his early days was ridiculed for his inaccurate predictions but he has gotten better at it over time.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 25, 2019)

otto105 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...



The only surveys done BY climate scientists and OF climate scientists, are not opinion surveys.. Most of them are shoddy studies of the papers they chose to look at.. And their methodology doesn't pass the basics of "polling"... In fact, the ones oft quoted didn't even ASK climate scientists any questions.. They took a bunch of papers and looked for "key words"..  And then they cheated by counting papers that didn't TAKE a stand on opinion as "yes" votes on their phony consensus.. That would be the COOK study in the Wiki.. The guy is a failed cartoonist and activist -- not a scientist of any type... 

And you're not really READING these Wiki entries if you think the questions are definitive... For example from your link.... 



> *Powell, 2013[edit]*
> James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium,[5] 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.[6][7][8][9] This was a follow-up to an analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed articles published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[10][11][12]



So critically speaking, only 24 of 13,000 articles totally DENIED "anthropogenic warming".., Guess the fuck what Bullwinkle ????? 

I DON'T DENY "anthropogenic warming".. So by that WEAK QUESTION that was asked -- I'm officially by THEIR definition, -- not a denier.... But that's a USELESS question to ASK and base public policy that rips apart the infrastructure and economy of this country for something we have little chance of suceeding at.. Especially if it's along the lines of the "Green Raw Deal"..  

That's WHY ALL of those survey (polls) are purposely uninformative.. 

From Bray and von Storch -- ANOTHER question about Climate Science that's MORE critical than any others asked in those survey(polls) mentioned BESIDES Bray and von Storch... If you don't have complete FAITH in the accuracy of the modeling, you cannot TELL ANYONE how bad it's gonna get in the future.... 






Before you return just to harangue me again, you should ponder WHY this GW/CC issue has lost traction so badly in the last 10 or 12 years.  It's because the science is NOT completely known or settled and the original dire forecasts that panicked folks have been defused.. 

And most of the predictions for 50 or 100 years out have FAILED BADLY within 10 yrs of their existence.. THAT'S WHY --- that question above is VITAL to any "consensus" on GW/CC...


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 25, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Catastrophic results in areas of the globe are predicted & possible.
> 
> The worst predictions have the premise that we do nothing to curb emissions & made prior to any action being done.
> 
> ...



You're projecting your views here.. Not using the actual science... I just told you a PAGE AGO, that the official projection on temp anomaly in 2100 was between 0.3DegC and 4.8DegC... The media and politicians and rabid fanboys will just LEAP to the highest number.. But that's NOT the prediction... And with a range of uncertainty AS WIDE AS THAT ---- 

You can rant, foam, invent pants crapping scenarios, propose $90TRILL "Green Raw Deals", flame ME, or just flap your arms -- but you're paying NO attention to what the science actually can do or says.... 

And a MINORITY of climate scientists propose this "trigger temperature" dealy that AOC believes "ENDS THE WORLD in 12 years"... But that's not consensus science either.. And so far, NONE of things we SHOULD be seeing if there was to be "run-away accelerations" of warming have manifested.. 

It's FAR more nuanced and detailed than an issue you can just flame people about and believe you understand it and THEY don't....


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 25, 2019)

It's real simple for the Church of GW/CC Catastrophe types.. If the BEST GUESS at the temperature in 2100 covers a range of values that goes 16 to 1, and the majority of climate scientists say that the public has been misled about what their technical work says (the 1st chart I posted) and 35% of them have DOUBTS about the models being able to PREDICT temperatures even 50 years into the future (the 2nd chart I just posted) ---

There IS no general consensus on GW/CC, other than there ARE anthropogenic factors, AND the science is NOT even nearly settled..  That's why this circus train has stalled out.. Too many people REALIZE the amount of distortion and propaganda that has substituted for the actual science..

It's "time-out" to stop the PANIC and let the science take it's course...


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 25, 2019)

Erinwltr said:


> Eighteen of the 19 warmest years on record for the planet have occurred since 2000, and we keep observing these highly unusual and often record-breaking high temperatures.
> 
> They won’t stop soon, but cuts to greenhouse emissions would eventually slow them down.
> 
> Thing that gets me is that we have the ability to stop this or at least drastically slow it.



You need to repent for your carbon sins.

Only YOU can please Gaia - go zero emission Comrade...

If EVERY Gaia worshiping leftist completely stopped creating carbon, the world would heal. Do your part.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 25, 2019)

Kilroy2 said:


> Renewable energy is the source of light that will keep it lit.



Other than hydro and geothermal which both have drastic effects on the environment, that list of ALTERNATIVES, HAS NO alternatives right now to fossil fuels.. Wind and solar are flaky unreliable supplements. NOT alternatives..

You COULD solve the CO2 emission issue completely with a build-out of nuclear power.. In fact the "GodFather of Global Warming Panic himself -- James Hansen fielded a petition of leading enviros and climate scientists stating ----

Is nuclear power the answer on climate change?


*Hansen departs from environmental orthodoxy, however, in arguing that there is no way to cut greenhouse gas emissions sufficiently by relying solely on green alternatives like solar and wind power.

“Suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole” Hansen writes in an essay, “is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.”
*
There ya go... Solution is right in front of you.. But the scary thing is -- leftists are MORE AFRAID of nuclear power than they are of Global Warming... And THAT --- should tell you why NONE OF THIS "alternative horseshit" is getting traction or serious attention....

Have fun waiting up for the "Tooth Fairy".....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 25, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> Kilroy2 said:
> 
> 
> > Renewable energy is the source of light that will keep it lit.
> ...




*leftists are MORE AFRAID of nuclear power than they are of Global Warming... And THAT --- should tell you why NONE OF THIS "alternative horseshit" is getting traction or serious attention....*

^
This.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 25, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Kilroy2 said:
> ...



Want to see AOC's head explode???  Go give her the actual working plan to "Save the World" without bundling her greenie stuff with govt takeover of more than half of the economy....


----------



## Kilroy2 (Jul 25, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> Kilroy2 said:
> 
> 
> > Renewable energy is the source of light that will keep it lit.
> ...




What is flaky about wind and sun,there plenty of it and as technology becomes better over time as most things do then flaky is a term that you use

Saying that you can solve the CO2 problem with nuclear power well you can solve it by limited the cause of the CO2 problem

The problem with nuclear is the waste, also security. and natural disasters

 Of course most on the right who are more interested in making money would love to deregulate nuclear energy and trust companies to do it the right way  but oh snap they are in it for the money


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 25, 2019)

Kilroy2 said:


> What is flaky about wind and sun,there plenty of it and as technology becomes better over time as most things do then flaky is a term that you use



These are both mature technologies.. NOTHING is really fix the problem that the sun is only high enough for about 8 hours in a day.. Or that the wind REGULARLY takes a couple days off... 

For every GWatt of solar/wind you build out -- you need REDUNDANT RELIABLE power for when these sources flake out and aren't there.. So you're building and paying for DUPLICATE generation.. 

You didn't think solar was good at night, in snowstorms, or when it's cloudy -- DID YA???


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 25, 2019)

Kilroy2 said:


> The problem with nuclear is the waste, also security. and natural disasters



Not the newer designs.. They don't use multi-ton fuel rods or some designs don't even require water cooling.. Inherently safer...  

0.7 ounces of nuclear fuel will power one household for a year.. There's no other source of energy with that small a footprint.. If we can handle the battery waste stream from all those electric cars -- we can certainly handle a chunk of nuclear fuel the size and weight of AAA battery for each house per year... 

And heavy toxic metals from battery and other waste have INFINITE half-lives in our waste stream and we handle Megatons of that crap.....


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 25, 2019)

Kilroy2 said:


> Of course most on the right who are more interested in making money would love to deregulate nuclear energy and trust companies to do it the right way but oh snap they are in it for the money



You don't think wind and solar isn't NOW driven by greedy people who want those subsidies?  There IS a "big Wind and Big Solar" industry... You just think they are cute and cuddly... 

LOTS of folks bilking money out of subsidized wind and solar.. BIG BUCKS.....


----------



## toobfreak (Jul 26, 2019)

BWK said:


> *Pay no attention to man made climate change folks*
> It was 84 degrees near the Arctic Ocean this weekend as carbon dioxide hit its highest level in human history



Get back to us when it hits 100°  I like numbers with three digits.


----------



## Kilroy2 (Jul 26, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> Kilroy2 said:
> 
> 
> > Of course most on the right who are more interested in making money would love to deregulate nuclear energy and trust companies to do it the right way but oh snap they are in it for the money
> ...




Oil and coal is subsidized like wind and solar as most energy industries so big deal I just pointed out how right wing like deregulation.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


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


As a practicing meteorologist and atmospheric physicist I can say with 100% certainty, man is not causing our current warming.  The empirical evidence shows is it naturally occurring and mans influence can not be discerned from noise in the climatic system.


----------



## Kilroy2 (Jul 26, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> Kilroy2 said:
> 
> 
> > The problem with nuclear is the waste, also security. and natural disasters
> ...



yeah except power plants have been around for a while and some are still operational.  There life span is about 50 - 80 years but in the beginning they were looking at 40 years. The oddest plants are coming up to the 50 year mark.

As they plants are doing long term they have yet to study the long term affects on steel and concrete of the buildings.  I guess it will be up to the scientist to figure it out before its to late

GOA says US generates about 80,000 metric tons of nuclear waste that requires disposal. Spent nuclear fuel is a serious hazard to humans and the environment. This is enough to fill a football stadium 20 meters deep. and that just the civilian portion. U.S. government’s nuclear weapons program  about 14,000 metric tons, according to the Department of Energy (DOE). For the most part, this waste is stored where it was generated—at 80 sites in 35 states. The amount of waste is expected to increase to about 140,000 metric tons over the next several decades


----------



## Kilroy2 (Jul 26, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...




Then why do other scientist and professionals disagree with you.

And 100 percent that is pretty certain for a scientist no room for error
what is it about 95 percent that is the gold standard 

Still I would ask have you measured  everything that man can put out there that would cause warming on top of how the eco system operates. 

 They know that the earth has had warming trends in its history and certain radiation lives the earth
I guess they disagree about the effect that man has on it.  

Still you might want to come off that 100 percent certainty


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 26, 2019)

Kilroy2 said:


> Then why do other scientist and professionals disagree with you.


Because they have been feed misinformation and falsified data. They rely on modeling and they refuse to look at that modelings ability to predict.  About 30 years ago, when all modeling failed inside 6 months they decided to change how they looked at the information from them. They were upset and dismayed at the predictive failure after predictive failure falsifying their hypotheses. 

Simply put, they have chosen to be fooled by their failing models.

I have chosen to look at the raw data and take it for what it tells me. Natural variation and the Null Hypothesis tell me their modeling fails empirical review.  Its way past time for a new hypothesis.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 26, 2019)

Kilroy2 said:


> And 100 percent that is pretty certain for a scientist no room for error
> what is it about 95 percent that is the gold standard



This is why I can say with 100% certainty that MMCC is bogus.. The modeling fails without exception indicating their understanding of the system is so bad that they are unable to model it.

Dr Spencer's work show the predictive failures:




Note that Dr Spencer includes radiosondes balloon data showing the actual temps as well as the Satellite records.  The failure is massive and irrefutable.


----------



## Kilroy2 (Jul 26, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Kilroy2 said:
> 
> 
> > Then why do other scientist and professionals disagree with you.
> ...



Modeling is about prediction based on whatever data your using and at the beginning it was new and still recorded measurements are what about 120 years and the earth is a lot older 

Well you would expect it to fail as it is a prediction and they were trying to figure out how to do this. They came up with a plan if it didn't work out then they will change it. They are smarter that what you give them credit for. 

and it will depend on long they been doing it but they will get better. Still  predictions are based on measurements taken

still it is not about the measurements, its about the effects. Is ocean levels rising to the point that they threaten coastal cities. What effect will the Arctic ice have on the ocean as it shrinks. The loss of ice mass in the Antarctic.

Can u predict what would happen in the future with any certainty 

Still NASA seems to be on board. I mean they can put a man on the moon and have this big project for mars. You would think that that if they believe in global warming that there might be something to it. 

I can accept that the eco system ebbs and flows but earth never had the population that it has now. To say Man does not affect the earth is a bold statement but you say its small. 

How long will it stay small in the future


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 26, 2019)

Kilroy2 said:


> They came up with a plan if it didn't work out then they will change it. They are smarter that what you give them credit for.


I work and went to school with many of these people and they live and die by their modeling. The base hypothesis hasn't changed in 50 years and they refuse to change it, even with massive predictive failures.

They do what the grant looks for rather than science... Follow the money!


----------



## Markle (Jul 26, 2019)

Kilroy2 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Kilroy2 said:
> ...


Who has said that there should be no regulations on nuclear energy?  So desperate you have to lie.  Pitiful!


----------



## Markle (Jul 26, 2019)

Kilroy2 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Kilroy2 said:
> ...



What percentage of gross sales of both solar and oil are subsidies?


----------



## xband (Jul 26, 2019)

BWK said:


> It was 84 degrees near the Arctic Ocean this weekend as carbon dioxide hit its highest level in human history  It was only 84 degrees in the Arctic this past weekend, eclipsing  record highs for the area. In known history that has never happened.  In the mean time, Trump and the rest of these oil butt boys, are contemplating drilling for oil in the Arctic. You think they give a shit? Or Republicans? Or some Democrats? Hell no. People, the wealthy are stealing resources for short term gain at the expense of the planet, our lives, and the creatures that live here.. And we enable this insanity. When does it stop? Other countries are moving forward with green energy plans, and we are not. When does the madness end?



Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.


----------



## RealDave (Jul 26, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


 
The 15 nuclear reactors of the same design as Fukushima along the New Madrid fault line comes to mind.

Or the shut down of Three Mile Island taking 60 years.

Or the leaking reactors in Illinois upwind from Chicago.

Chernobyl

Fukushima

Expensive

A threat to millions of Americans


----------



## RealDave (Jul 26, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Kilroy2 said:
> ...


 
More afraid of Climate Change & consider other options.   Nuclear power is not the only solution.


----------



## bodecea (Jul 26, 2019)

BWK said:


> It was 84 degrees near the Arctic Ocean this weekend as carbon dioxide hit its highest level in human history  It was only 84 degrees in the Arctic this past weekend, eclipsing  record highs for the area. In known history that has never happened.  In the mean time, Trump and the rest of these oil butt boys, are contemplating drilling for oil in the Arctic. You think they give a shit? Or Republicans? Or some Democrats? Hell no. People, the wealthy are stealing resources for short term gain at the expense of the planet, our lives, and the creatures that live here.. And we enable this insanity. When does it stop? Other countries are moving forward with green energy plans, and we are not. When does the madness end?


It's too late to do anything anyways.....those with money will be able to adjust fine, others....not so much.


----------



## bodecea (Jul 26, 2019)

martybegan said:


> Erinwltr said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


No...we are too late to do anything.


----------



## RealDave (Jul 26, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> Kilroy2 said:
> 
> 
> > Of course most on the right who are more interested in making money would love to deregulate nuclear energy and trust companies to do it the right way but oh snap they are in it for the money
> ...


  Nuclear energy is te most subsidized.


----------



## Erinwltr (Jul 26, 2019)

bodecea said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Erinwltr said:
> ...


Unfortunately, I think you may be right.  Kind of scary.  I thought I'd be dead and gone when the worst of it comes around.


----------



## otto105 (Jul 26, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...




"Haranguers"?

I don't have to "think like a scientist" to come to a realization that GW/CC is real and that it is man made. I can with 100% certainty accept the determination of actual scientists and scientific organizations that GW/CC is real and poses a threat to our way of life.

You have nothing but doubt sowing and NO scientific organization to back opinion that cow farts are natural, so don't worry. Why is it that NO scientific organization will back your opinion?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 26, 2019)

otto105 said:


> I don't have to "think like a scientist"


So you admit your a dupe and will remain a dupe... Bravo!  Admitting you have a problem is the first step...


----------



## otto105 (Jul 26, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't have to "think like a scientist"
> ...




Deflect....say do you have a scientific organization willing to destroy it's repetition to support your denial position or not.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 26, 2019)

otto105 said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...


"do you have a scientific organization willing to destroy it's repetition to support you...." 

LOL

deflection:  Appeal to authority. Logical Fallacy argument.  

Why do you take what the political arm of any organization, which do not ask their members if they agree with it, as gospel? They spew political crap and their members call them on it .. yet you believe...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 26, 2019)

Kilroy2 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Kilroy2 said:
> ...



*Oil and coal is subsidized like wind and solar *

You're lying.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



Yeah but the world is gonna end in 12 years.
What's the risk of New Madrid compared to that?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



*Nuclear power is not the only solution. *

No, but it's the only large scale, 24 hour power source if you want to reduce CO2.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 26, 2019)

Dale Smith said:


> View attachment 271198
> 
> 
> RealDave said:
> ...



Yes, water vapor is normal.


----------



## Flash (Jul 26, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




You have to remember that to these idiot Moon Bats almost ten billion people can get all their energy needs from solar and wind.  they have been told that and they believe it.  You can't reason with stupidity like that.


----------



## otto105 (Jul 26, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...




Homophobia aside, waste disposal issues.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 26, 2019)

otto105 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



Our reactors have managed to store all their spent fuel on site for decades.
Not very much volume....why is it an issue?


----------



## Flash (Jul 26, 2019)

otto105 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...




There is a great place to store the waste at Yucca Mountain.  I have been there.  However, the stupid Environmental Wackos are fighting it tooth and nail because they  know not having a disposal site can help to curtail nuclear power production.  Really stupid, isn't it?


----------



## Kilroy2 (Jul 26, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Kilroy2 said:
> 
> 
> > They came up with a plan if it didn't work out then they will change it. They are smarter that what you give them credit for.
> ...



What are your conclusions and have they been verified

Fine are you saying the predictive models are in error then what are your conclusions from what work you have done.


----------



## otto105 (Jul 26, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




What plant are you referencing?


----------



## RealDave (Jul 26, 2019)

Flash said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


 What is really stupid to to put  this dangerous materials on a train & take it cross country.through hundreds of communities.


----------



## otto105 (Jul 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...




Power generation from aging nuclear plants is costing its customers more money than renewable energy sources.


Just see the bill in Ohio of reference.


----------



## RealDave (Jul 26, 2019)

Flash said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


The sun rains down enough energy during the noontime hour to power the planet for  a year.

But hey, fuck that.  Lets instead build all these plants where an accident or earthquake could contaminate the area for decades & kill thousands.


----------



## RealDave (Jul 26, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Misquoting is the mainstay of the dishonest fucks of Trumpland


----------



## RealDave (Jul 26, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Kilroy2 said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


 So you claim there are no oil & gas subsidies like the ones Republicans fought to save a few years back.


----------



## Kilroy2 (Jul 26, 2019)

Markle said:


> Kilroy2 said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Good try but all I was suggesting that repubs and the man in charge *like *deregulation

President Trump is committed to a deregulatory agenda

In fact nuclear energy has gone thru some deregulation to a degree all I am suggesting with Trump and repubs in charge he *may* shoot for more

Nuclear power plants that have reached there recommended life span are now being considered for extension.  Plants that were once thought to be uneconomical and subject to early closure are now viewed as valuable assets

They are looking for 20 year extensions. There is a new environment that is looking for more leeway with regulations. 

anyway you got me off tract. 

So learn to read and do research


----------



## Dale Smith (Jul 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Kilroy2 said:
> ...



STFU, little davey. You, like all your little leftard pals can never explain as to how the earth could be "saved" by paying a carbon tax to the very banking oligarchs that own big oil and this petroleum based world wide economy. You are one of THE dumbest fuckwads here. Climate change? Blame geo-engineering and THAT is a fact regardless whether it pisses off a leftard moderator or not. The truth is what it is.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 26, 2019)

otto105 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...



All of them.


----------



## 22lcidw (Jul 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I guarantee you if someone invented a device to garner the most out of the sun's rays it would be public by now. Of the government I do not know. Most likely though it would not be someone who is"qualified" by PC, quotas and affirmative action. But the reduced numbers of those who still can dream and have ideas.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Kilroy2 said:
> ...



Post them, I'll point out your errors.


----------



## Kilroy2 (Jul 26, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



deflection:  Appeal to authority. Logical Fallacy argument. 

be careful because you seem to have fallen into the thing that you seem to detest.

You are looking for vindication and the only ones who can give that to you are those with the authority

otherwise there is no need to publish your papers or submit
them to anyone

Unless you are afraid of criticism or people rejecting your ideas

You say raw data is your difference but it can be said that by your own admissions that data can be skewed for any advantages.

aren't u doing the same thing

Hey no guts no glory you may be right about the methodology for collecting data but I hear no conclusion drawn from you except everybody else is wrong

well you are in good company, history has always had the one person who went against the flow and they have been right

but don't jump for joy yet cause it may be just as easily for it to go the other direction


----------



## Markle (Jul 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> What is really stupid to to put this dangerous materials on a train & take it cross country.through hundreds of communities.



Why?  Tens of thousands of railroad cars, containing extremely hazardous materials are transported every day with no problems.


----------



## Markle (Jul 26, 2019)

otto105 said:


> Power generation from aging nuclear plants is costing its customers more money than renewable energy sources.
> 
> 
> Just see the bill in Ohio of reference.



You seem to have forgotten your reliable source and working link supporting your allegation.  Please correct that oversight.


----------



## Markle (Jul 26, 2019)

Kilroy2 said:


> So learn to read and do research



I do, please provide us with your reliable source and working links proving your allegations.  If they're safe, what is wrong with extending the licenses of older nuclear power plants?


----------



## Flash (Jul 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...




You are confused Moon Bat.

As an Environmental Engineer working under a consulting DOE contract I have reviewed the plan for storage at Yucca Mountain, including the transportation.  I also worked on the contract for the management of the site.  Very familiar.  Transportation is perfectly safe, including accident scenarios.  A lot more safer than most hazardous material that are shipped across the country every day.

The stupid Environmental Wackos are using that as an excuse to limit the production of nuclear power and that is despicable, not to mention downright moronic.   Environmental Wackos never get anything right.  They are idiots.


----------



## Flash (Jul 26, 2019)

otto105 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Flash said:
> ...




Nuclear power generation is costly but for an entirely different reason than most people think.

Because of the stupid NRC approval regiment it cost almost two billion dollars to permit a nuclear power plant.  That is in addition to the construction and operating cost and has to be amortized over the life of the plant.   That is a tremendous additional burden to the annual cost of a nuclear power plant.

That doesn't even include the tremendous regulatory oversight burden that the plants have to fund each operating year.

Nuclear power production could be a lot less expensive and perfectly safe if we didn't have the stupid Environmental Wackos adding significant unnecessary burdens on to the construction and operating cost.


----------



## otto105 (Jul 26, 2019)

Flash said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...





Flash said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...




The Ohio Nuclear plants were built in 1978 and 1987, so your present day costing estimate is irrelevant. The problem with the plants is that the power they generate cost more than other sources.

How (un)profitable are Ohio’s two nuclear plants? FirstEnergy Solutions says it can’t tell the public


An here I thought that republic pols didn't pick winners and losers, but rather let the market determine.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Nuclear Power for electrical grid generation is the ONLY RELIABLE and VIABLE alternative.. Any other things on the list of "alternatives" are NOT alternatives. They are supplements at best and NOT reliable. They all require an equal amount of 24/7/365 generation to cover for them when they are not operating....


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



Any COAL plant is a continuing source of nuclear radiation MUCH larger than even the 60 year reactors.. If you're unfamiliar with this FACT -- look it up... You COULD close many of them with a nuclear push.. AND tear down the dams, free the salmon and BEAT all other countries to Paris/Kyoto "compliance"... Tho it STILL wont "save the planet" from CO2 emissions from China...

ANYTIME you insist on pushing along aged technology -- you are endangering people.. Doesn't matter if it's communications, computers, or medicine... So -- there's no reason why the NEW TECHNOLOGY shouldn't get an expedited approval, so that America can lead the world in that important technology...


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



Also you failed to mention the hands down largest nuclear polluter in this country.. That would be the US nuclear weapons factories and waste dumps..  THESE have THOUSANDS of rotting barrels of nuclear waste just stashed everywhere.. NEVER been an attempt to fix this... SOME of these sites, Savannah River, and Oak Ridge are over major aquifers.. Hanford is such a radioactive nuclear dump that they bury bulldozers in place after a month or two because they glow in the dark... 

THAT immoral lack of responsibility FAR EXCEEDS any of the minor maintenance problems on ANY operating reactor.. And you just have to EXPECT "maintenance issues" on any 66 yr old power gen plant...


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Kilroy2 said:
> ...



The hell it is... The govt never even came thru with it's SOLE promise of a nat. nuclear depository in 60 years.. The only REAL subsidy is limits on damages that law has immunized them with... 

By far -- by percentage of initial cost and operation -- wind and solar are the highest subsidized generators... But not for much longer...


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 26, 2019)

otto105 said:


> I don't have to "think like a scientist" to come to a realization that GW/CC is real and that it is man made. I can with 100% certainty accept the determination of actual scientists and scientific organizations that GW/CC is real and poses a threat to our way of life.



We agree on that it's at least partially a man-made efffect.. That's NOT ENOUGH to call it a planet ending crisis and THAT's  where we  separate..  Because there's not near ENOUGH clarity in THOSE questions of "How bad will it get" -- to be spending this kind of energy telling folks they've been misled and abused by politicos and the media as to what the science actually can predict with high confidence or what many of the KEY studies actually said...

There has been a lot of exaggeration and hype stiring up folks (two in this thread) that think they're about to die.. Because of 0.6DegC change during their life  in GLOBAL mean temperature that is mostly affecting about 40% of the globe...


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 26, 2019)

otto105 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



There's a lot less waste handling issues with latest gen reactors.. You're no longer dealing with 20 ton rods of the stuff.. More like pingpong ball size pebbles that are easier to store, recycle, move... 

The french allow reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel.. We should also..  And the french use a lead glass encapsulation process that makes waste sites more reliable.. The technology is there. It's been thwarted for 50 years by ignorant eco-warriors... 

HOWEVER -- more and more of the top brass of the eco crowd have ENDORSED IT in light of their perceived threat of GW/CC... THEY -- have their heads screwed on right... 

An Open Letter to Environmentalists on Nuclear Energy

Read the list of endorsements. These folks got it right...


----------



## Jitss617 (Jul 26, 2019)

If you don’t vote democrat the sky is falling lol haha


----------



## otto105 (Jul 26, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't have to "think like a scientist" to come to a realization that GW/CC is real and that it is man made. I can with 100% certainty accept the determination of actual scientists and scientific organizations that GW/CC is real and poses a threat to our way of life.
> ...




Nobody is claiming that the planet will end. They're claiming that the climate mankind prospered under will be negatively altered.

And it's not partially man-made, its completely man-made unless you can point to another catalyst that all of science has missed.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 26, 2019)

otto105 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...


Yes as a matter of fact numerous people have claimed man will end. All by lying about what is happening.


----------



## otto105 (Jul 26, 2019)

Jitss617 said:


> If you don’t vote democrat the sky is falling lol haha



Way to be less than useless.


----------



## Meister (Jul 26, 2019)

otto105 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...



Yeah, yeah, the closest star has no impact whatsoever.  No sir, it's all man made.


----------



## otto105 (Jul 26, 2019)

RetiredGySgt said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...




Using unnamed people to prove your point???

The horror.


----------



## otto105 (Jul 26, 2019)

Meister said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...





Okay, what scientific organization agrees with your opinion?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 26, 2019)

AOC ring a bell? How about Gore?


----------



## Meister (Jul 26, 2019)

otto105 said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...


Really? 
I can't believe that a person with an IQ larger than his shoe size would even argue my point.
But....there it is.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 26, 2019)

otto105 said:


> Nobody is claiming that the planet will end.



Can't discuss with someone who ignores the obvious.. 




Daniel Turner on Twitter



When you're done with those and you can be HONEST about it --- let's chat....


----------



## Flash (Jul 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




You are confused Moon Bat but I have a science experiment for you that will show you how stupid you are to post silly shit like that..

On a sunny day go stick you hand out in the sun.  See if that is enough energy to run your AC, Heating, Refrigerator, hot water heater and all the other electrical devices you have in your home. 

I'll tell you what you are going to find.  It ain't enough.  The sun's heat is not concentrated enough over the surface of the earth to provide a strong energy source for electrical generation.

It doesn't work.  That is why all the stupid solar projects has to have government subsidies to make them competitive with fossil fuels or nuclear or hydro.  

A heavily government subsidized solar array on your roof may supply some of the electricity you use but not really close to enough in a year's time.  That is only if the sun is shinning and you live in an area with many sunshine days days.   Up north forget it.

Solar is fine for providing a little heat to my screened in pool here in Florida during the summer.  It is even OK for powering calculators but for a real source of energy, not even close.

It is nothing more than an Environmental Wackos wet dream.  Take away the government subsidies and every solar project in the world would go belly up and every company producing solar cells would close their doors.

If somebody has solar they are a welfare queen because the filthy government is making somebody else pay their energy bill.  Disgusting, isn't it?


----------



## otto105 (Jul 26, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > Nobody is claiming that the planet will end.
> ...



I just reviewed the last video and nowhere with in it did anyone make the claim all of mankind would be wiped out.

The second to last one is one guy making the claim of mass extinction, but he's not a consensus.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 26, 2019)

Meister said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Actually the inside skinny on this is -- UN IPCC was chartered ONLY to look into MANMADE causes of CC... It states that in it's original mission statement.. And all the "selected" science to come out of that hired stable of scientists took GREAT efforts to even REDEFINE basic science like "total solar irradiation" to mean something else...

There's this juvenile horseshit belief that temperature changes at the surface have to be forced by immediately preceding events.. Like if CO2 goes up by a tick -- tomorrow the Global temp will rise... That's simply bunk.. The EARTH responds to new thermal equilibriums quite slowly... Over decades, maybe out to century..

So the Total Solar Irradiation PEAKED about 1965 after RISING for nearly 200 years since the Little Ice Age.. And it SAT THERE for another couple decades until it started to drop into what many thing might be ANOTHER coming Little Ice Age...

So the IPCC waved there hands and said -- since there has been no appreciable solar change since the mid 60s --- there can't be an effect from the sun.. BUT BUT BUT ---

Right there in the REST of their report is the thermodynamic science for the LAG IN RESPONSE of surface temps to forcings.  And as far as any thermo system goes, ONE "forcing" like retained heat from CO2 is just as good as another (like a significant up-step in TSolarIrrr)  to produced delayed heating..

And this is confirmed in ALL the GW/CC studies of the short time and long term response times of the climate...

The IPCC just SKIRTED the issue, lied a bit, and moved on because ----

As Mueller said 100 times in the hearings on Wednesday, when asked about stuff he didn't want to have to address -----

It's not in my PURVIEW......


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 26, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...





So you fucking think it would be a better life with out cars and concrete?

.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 26, 2019)

otto105 said:


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





*What do they agree on?*




Please be specific, because I am dying to know..



.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 26, 2019)

Kilroy2 said:


> I believe the scientist as man can affect his environment.  Nonrenewable energy will eventually be gone and Renewable energy is the source of light that will keep it lit. There is a consensus with scientist about global warming.  Just because people do not understand it does not mean that its not real. Just because man who has been at it for a short time may not always get it right , does not mean that the original premise was incorrect.
> 
> Nature has its mechanism for warming and cooling. The question is as the number of people increase on the planet and they use up resources. How can people not affect it.
> 
> ...




Why do they agree on?


.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 26, 2019)

otto105 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...



It's ALL bunk and speculation, NOT science. BuT -- responsible leaders around the world are echoing the NOT SETTLED 1.5DegC "tipping point" that will kill the planet if not fixed in 12 years... There is SO MUCH wrong with this radical "theory"... That's not MY problem... It's yours...

Go back to that video and LEARN what the "tipping (or trigger) point theory of planetary destruction is all about.. Go to about 2 minutes in...

Then realize how much news cycle coverage the Green Raw Deal got because of mental midgets ECHOING this largely unsupported claim... And how it's used around the world to justify $TRILLs in  "reparations" for 3rd world countries in the UN..... And in the US it's now being used to justify Fed Govt take-over of more than 1/2 of the economy.... 

"No one is claiming this" --- you just can't be honest.. MAYBE because you don't follow this issue closely... OR MAYBE because you think this is a POLITICAL problem and not a "science" issue....


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 26, 2019)

Just to back up my statement that UN IPCC had a BIASED mission statement. That they IGNORED the stuff outside of their "Mueller-esque" purview... Here's what they assembled to do....

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf

PRINCIPLES GOVERNING IPCC WORK
Approved at the Fourteenth Session (Vienna, 1-3 October 1998) on 1 October 1998, amended at the Twenty-First Session (Vienna, 3 and 6-7 November 2003), the Twenty-Fifth Session (Mauritius, 26-28 April 2006) and the Thirty-Fifth Session (Geneva, 6-9 June 2012)

*ROLE
2. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.
*
No scientific investigation of something like this  would be limited like that.. ONLY if you HAD a desired and pre-conceived outcome you were trying to justify.... THAT's why (like the Mueller probe) so much important FACTUAL and CONTEXTUAL evidence got ignored....


----------



## francoHFW (Jul 26, 2019)

Theowl32 said:


> Spoken by stupid fucking liberals who don't do one fucking thing for the environment.
> 
> Makes you wonder why stupid fucking liberals living on the coasts are not moving in masses away from coastal regions. They aren't.
> 
> ...


I thought Obama and Hillary were dictators killing clean coal forcing people to buy electric cars and solar cells etc etc etc.


----------



## francoHFW (Jul 26, 2019)

bear513 said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


Every scientist and political party in the world agree the global warming is real except for the brainwashed GOP ignoramuses....


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 26, 2019)

francoHFW said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...




So they agree the earth climate has changed for 4.5 billion years..


Thanks for the update a 7 year old could of told us that.


.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 26, 2019)

otto105 said:


> And it's not partially man-made, its completely man-made unless you can point to another catalyst that all of science has missed.



It's not EXPECTED that the Mean temp of planet would EVER be a constant... Historic evidence confirms that like WEATHER --- climate does have a natural variability... So, it's not that easy to say that our hundred 1degC blip in temp is ENTIRELY due to one factor..

That's what YOU'VE missed. Assuming that the climate does not naturally change over decades or centuries. It does. That doesn't show in a lot of the "ancient climate" studies using proxies, because those tree rings, ice cores and mud bug shells are NOT thermometers and the end result of data processing all of those things together destroys the absolute ACCURACY and TIME resolution of the results... This is an whole 'nother argument you have not heard....

Some proxies are better than others and CLEARLY show a LOT of "natural variability" in past climates since the last major Ice Age.... For instance, Greenland has "better ice" for ice cores since it's not a desert like the Antarctic continent.. Therefore there is higher TIME resolution in that proxy....







NOTE: In this high resolution proxy - there are NUMEROUS and QUITE RAPID swings in temperature....


----------



## francoHFW (Jul 26, 2019)

bear513 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


Man-made global warming is agreed on everywhere but brainwashed GOP dupe world. Ditto your phony scandals all of them.


----------



## francoHFW (Jul 26, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


Actually all scientists and every political party in the world except you brainwashed functional morons agree on man-made global warming.


----------



## Meister (Jul 26, 2019)

francoHFW said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...


All scientists?  I'm laughing at you, Frankie.  That is ranked in the top 5 stupid comments of the day.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 26, 2019)

francoHFW said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...




You've made that same juvenile comment THREE times now... Care to join in the discussion? Or are you just here to chant about politics??? 

What EXACTLY do "all of them" agree on? Do they agree on a temperature estimate for 2100 that's useful?

Do they agree that the world is DOOMED in 12 years because of marginal theory about GW "trigger temperatures"?? 

Do they all agree that the public is WELL INFORMED on what the science actually says? 

Have they figured out whether Climate Change will make it wetter or dryer? Or how it will REALLY affect tropical storms??? 

Give it your best....


----------



## Markle (Jul 26, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> Nuclear Power for electrical grid generation is the ONLY RELIABLE and VIABLE alternative.. Any other things on the list of "alternatives" are NOT alternatives. They are supplements at best and NOT reliable. *They all require an equal amount of 24/7/365 generation to cover for them when they are not operating....*



That is 100% TRUE and something the vast majority of people do not understand that the Global Warming hoaxers do not want anyone to know.


----------



## Markle (Jul 26, 2019)

otto105 said:


> Nobody is claiming that the planet will end. They're claiming that the climate mankind prospered under will be negatively altered.
> 
> And it's not partially man-made, its completely man-made unless you can point to another catalyst that all of science has missed.



Yeah, about that, the leader of the Squad did say the world will end.

*Ocasio-Cortez: 'World will end in 12 years' if climate change not addressed*
BY JOHN BOWDEN - 01/22/19 08:27 AM EST

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) on Monday said she thinks that there is an urgency needed in addressing man-made climate change, warning that it will "destroy the planet" in a dozen years if humans do not address the issue, no matter the cost.

Ocasio-Cortez: 'World will end in 12 years' if climate change not addressed


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 26, 2019)

Markle said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Nuclear Power for electrical grid generation is the ONLY RELIABLE and VIABLE alternative.. Any other things on the list of "alternatives" are NOT alternatives. They are supplements at best and NOT reliable. *They all require an equal amount of 24/7/365 generation to cover for them when they are not operating....*
> ...


Most if not all of the cost of "coasting" power plants is not shared by wind owners and placed on those who supply fossil fueled power. Between the subsidies and not having to show how much coasting a reserve plant to take the load when the wind fails is the only reason that wind looks like a low cost alternative.  

These pricks need to pay for the cost of reserve power plants that are idling.


----------



## Markle (Jul 26, 2019)

otto105 said:


> I just reviewed the last video and nowhere with in it did anyone make the claim all of mankind would be wiped out.
> 
> The second to last one is one guy making the claim of mass extinction, but he's not a consensus.



Was this not your statement?  "Nobody is claiming that the planet will end."


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 26, 2019)

francoHFW said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...



So they agree on how much, Franco does man contributes?

A) 40%?

B) .000002%?

C) 100%?

D) 2%?


Come on tell us how much do they agree man contributes?


----------



## francoHFW (Jul 26, 2019)

Meister said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


I admire and respect your brainwashed opinion. All scientists except those owned by big oil or Fox at cetera.... You are total Chumps of Big oil lobbyists and scum LOL only place in the world.


----------



## francoHFW (Jul 26, 2019)

Markle said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > I just reviewed the last video and nowhere with in it did anyone make the claim all of mankind would be wiped out.
> ...


She was using hyperbole for effect. Only your propaganda machine goes on and on about this.


----------



## Jitss617 (Jul 26, 2019)

otto105 said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> > If you don’t vote democrat the sky is falling lol haha
> ...


Ummm ok


----------



## otto105 (Jul 26, 2019)

Jitss617 said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > Jitss617 said:
> ...



Feels good to achieve a lowed goal doesn't it.

Keep it up and you will be able to work the fryer soon.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 26, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Exactly... Who the hell wants to invest any electrical generation that is idled whenever the sun shines or the wind blows.. Not to mention the fact that solar is much more predictable than wind.. Wind can be there for 4 hours, take an instant dive for 45 minutes and be back for an hour before the next dive... Wind is SO bad, you can't even write a contract for delivery.. There's no way to sell it to the grid.... 

Not many "back-up" plants can cycle on-off that fast, so a LOT OF POWER actually gets DUMPED..The CO2 emissions STILL OCCUR...

China overbuilt wind.. And ending up DUMPING most of that into the ground instead of cycling their coal plants for many years until they finished their hydro projects that CAN be cycled fairly quickly...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 26, 2019)

francoHFW said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...



*She was using hyperbole for effect.*

She was lying, to sway the uneducated.


----------



## Dragonlady (Jul 26, 2019)

martybegan said:


> Erinwltr said:
> 
> 
> > Eighteen of the 19 warmest years on record for the planet have occurred since 2000, and we keep observing these highly unusual and often record-breaking high temperatures.
> ...



Where I live, all coal fired plants have been closed for years, and hospital admissions due to asthma and breathing problems have declined, saving tax dollars.  I used to head to emerg several times every summer, and have three different puffers, one set at home, in my purse and at my office.  I now have one puffer, and most of the time its at home.  It may be expired.

The decline in coal emissions has eliminated acid rain, saving public buildings and roadways from the more frequently replacements and repairs.  The windmills in Ontario rent parcels of land from farmers at $60,000 per lease, helping to stabilize income for family farmers.  The construction of thousands of windmills has created thousands of good paying high tech jobs.  

Instead of bring back coal, train the miners to build wind mills, or install solar panels.  Something whereby they're not exposing themselves to black lung disease, and the nation to dangerous emisions.


----------



## otto105 (Jul 26, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...




Isn't it time for you to look forward instead of backward?

Not blowing smoke: Wind has overtaken 'risky' coal for energy use in Texas for the first time


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 26, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...



She IS the "uneducated"... Degree from Boston U, not withstanding...
Has no concept of how anything works.. Not EVEN the economy or free markets or t



Dragonlady said:


> Instead of bring back coal, train the miners to build wind mills, or install solar panels. Something whereby they're not exposing themselves to black lung disease, and the nation to dangerous emisions.



Wind mills do NOT replace coal plants.. Have you ever LOOKED at the flaky performance of wind power on an hourly or daily basis.. You're believing in unicorns farting glitter.... 

Here's one of the world's best sited offshore plants... I'll explain the graph to you if don't get it.. If you DO get it, explain to me "what powers the grid" when the entire wind farm is generating near zero or BELOW 20% of it's expected output.... 

NEED AN ANSWER..... 







Here's one from the entire Texas wind grid.. One color is Grid Demand, the other is what wind can provide.. Do you understand how BADLY wind performs??  It is NOT an alternative to anything.. It's merely a curious old tech supplement...


----------



## Dragonlady (Jul 26, 2019)

This bookwritten by a Loblaws Senior Vice-President in 1991, was on the best-seller list, in its day.  I was working for a lawyer who did a lot of work with Loblaws when it came out, much of it around reducing plastics, and environment initiatives. 

https://www.amazon.com/Green-Gold-Business-Environmental-Revolution/dp/0887305202&tag=ff0d01-20

Loblaws made millions out of their green iniatives, based on Paddy Carson's strategies.  The chain was one of the first mainstream stores in North America to start carrying organic groceries, and green household products.  The Greenbox program reduced plastic bag useage. 

There is so much money to be made, and so many jobs to be created in moving from fossil fuels to reneweables, it's shocking that American conservatives have been so resistant to the possibilities.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 26, 2019)

otto105 said:


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



Sure sure... See the graphs above.. ALL of those phony claims are based on SINGLE DAY results or averaged weekly output... The grid depends on CONSISTENT UNINTERRUPTED POWER... It does not operate on just on Tuesdays and Thursdays....


----------



## Dragonlady (Jul 26, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...



This is a photo taken near where I live.  Windmills are everywhere.  






Ontario - Canadian Wind Energy Association


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 26, 2019)

Dragonlady said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



So you don't CARE if they provide RELIABLE SCHEDULABLE POWER???  Is that why you didn't respond to those graphs????


----------



## Markle (Jul 26, 2019)

Dragonlady said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Erinwltr said:
> ...



The World market needs coal and there are thousands of highly efficient, clean-burning coal power plants.  Nuclear power plants are also being built.

China learned from us that for a robustly growing economy, a country needs cheap, plentiful energy.  Failed former President Barack Hussein Obama tried and failed, to drastically increase the cost of our energy.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 26, 2019)

Markle said:


> The World market needs coal and there are thousands of highly efficient, clean-burning coal power plants.



That's what bugs me about the "greenie" list of "alternatives".. On it you'll find "biomass conversion".. A power plant that burns "renewable plant material"... Or that's the way it's SOLD to the gullible... Turns out the eco-nauts in England got burned badly when they all backed these awful plants in their neighborhoods..  England ran out of "wood chips" -- had to import them at massive cost and started to burn GARBAGE in them...

So --- I could never figure out why you can burn green plant material "CLEANLY" and ecologically responsively, but you just cannot do that with coal...

If you look at the Wiki under biomass, burning human waste from treatment plants is one of those bright ideas..

   You really would rather live near that than a newer generation clean coal plant?

It's like nuclear.. Most of the coal plants are old.. Govt has screwed them over to the point they CAN NOT UPDATE them without CO2 compliance.. So they don't... Even if they could remove EVERYTHING but the CO2...

Coal plant arguments are more about CO2 than they are about *REAL* pollutants. Because new coal plants can be extremely clean compared to the 50 or 80 yr old ones that the Feds won't allow to be updated....


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 26, 2019)

Coal is bad, but burning wood chips instead gets you medals of valor in the eco-wars....

New Biomass Plant Will Increase Dartmouth’s Sustainability | Dartmouth News

Can't fathom the stupidity and hypocrisy... It's only green if THEY SAY it's green.....

I wish I could learn to "virtue signal" like them and ignore facts, logic and reason... It would make life sweet...


----------



## Markle (Jul 26, 2019)

Dragonlady said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Why are we hearing less and less about this marvelous energy source?

How many thousand endangered birds do they kill every year?

*14,000 ABANDONED WIND TURBINES LITTER THE UNITED STATES* 
by The Elephant's Child
July 7, 2013, 7:19 am 

The towering symbols of a fading religion, over 14,000 wind turbines, abandoned, rusting, slowly decaying. When it is time to clean up after a failed idea, no green environmentalists are to be found. Wind was free, natural, harnessing Earth’s bounty for the benefit of all mankind, sounded like a good idea. Wind turbines, like solar panels, break down.  They produce less energy before they break down than the energy it took to make them.  The wind does not blow all the time, or even most of the time. When it is not blowing, they require full-time backup from conventional power plants.

14,000 Abandoned Wind Turbines Litter the United States

###

Monday, March 19, 2012
*Broken promises: The rusting wind turbines of Hawaii*
By Selected News Articles @ 4:01 PM

*Broken down and rusting, is this the future of Britain's 'wind rush'?*
by Tom Leonard, _UK Daily Mail _March 18, 2012

*Broken promises: The rusting wind turbines of Hawaii*

A breathtaking sight awaits those who travel to the southernmost tip of Hawaii’s stunningly beautiful Big Island, though it’s not in any guidebook. On a 100-acre site, where cattle wander past broken ‘Keep Out’ signs, stand the rusting skeletons of scores of wind turbines.

Just a short walk from where endangered monk seals and Hawksbill turtles can be found on an unspoilt sandy beach, a technology that is supposed to be about saving the environment is instead ruining it.

In other parts of the U.S., working wind turbines are killing hundreds of thousands of birds and bats each year, but here the wildlife can perch on the motionless steel blades

Broken promises: The rusting wind turbines of Hawaii > Hawaii Free Press

###


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 27, 2019)

Markle said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Those turbines have very short lives and require constant maintenance. You have 50 of them? You need more labor.. That's why leftists LOVE them.. They are inefficient use of labor.. And it's just not worth paying big bucks to fix the SMALLER older ones.. The new ones are HUGE and loud... 

Just the sound wave from one of the large ones will burst a tiny creature like a bat's heart...


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 27, 2019)

francoHFW said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...





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

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

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

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





77 out of 10,257 becomes 98%. 

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





2. Oh….BTW….

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



3. Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”
That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not!




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


A *research group* by the name of the “Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine” solicited signatures for a petition (known now as the Oregon Petition) to have the United States reject the *Kyoto Protocol*  to set internationally binding emission reduction targets.

This petition reads, in its entirety:

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

the petition bore 31,487 *signatures* as of October 2016: The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,157 MS; 2,586 MD and DVM; and 12,715 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.
FACT CHECK: Did 30,000 Scientists Declare Climate Change a Hoax?


This unintentional humor from the Snopes attempt to marginalize the petition: “Aside from the potential political motivations behind the petition, the misleading tactics employed to gather signatures, and the lack of verification…”

That pretty much describes the global warming scam.

We all know the economic benefits that accrue from signing onto the global warming scam.....show me the benefits that accrue to those 31,000 who simply chose to tell the truth.

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


What's their motive, you dunce?


----------



## francoHFW (Jul 27, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Dragonlady said:
> ...


We have four hundred of them within 20 miles and no problem.


----------



## francoHFW (Jul 27, 2019)

Markle said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


Obama? Another ridiculous phony scandal.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 27, 2019)

francoHFW said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...





Do you imagine (almost said 'think') that readers won't recognize that you had no way to dispute what I posted....linked, sourced, and documented as is my wont.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 27, 2019)

francoHFW said:


> Markle said:
> 
> 
> > Dragonlady said:
> ...



Obama was ridiculous and phony.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 27, 2019)

francoHFW said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...



Other than they are USELESS to rely on for constant power... AND their lifetime and maintenance AND environmental impact is really atrocious...


----------



## martybegan (Jul 28, 2019)

bodecea said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Erinwltr said:
> ...



That's why we have Engineers. Humans will survive. The soy boys and SJW twats, probably not.


----------



## martybegan (Jul 28, 2019)

Dragonlady said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Erinwltr said:
> ...



Wind mills and solar cannot replace base load. The only thing that can do that is Nuclear.

Unless you support nuclear power, you really aren't that concerned about AGW.

Plus modern technology can reduce the particulates and SOx and NOx that cause most of the environmental issues from fossil plants.


----------



## Kilroy2 (Jul 29, 2019)

PoliticalChic said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...





Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

*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

“Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.”14
*OTHER RESOURCES*
*List of Worldwide Scientific Organizations*
The following page lists the nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action.
List of Worldwide Scientific Organizations - Office of Planning and Research

Include NASA in the mix who believe in Global Warming

*NASA Climate*‏Verified account @NASAClimate Jul 25
Focusing on any short-term global temperature trend can be misleading. Here’s why it’s important to look at the big picture: https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2893/nope-earth-isnt-cooling/ …



Also NASA


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 29, 2019)

Lol....the OP cant provide a single link showing us that the public cares about climate change. Thats because ALL the evidence shows that nobody cares which means the science isnt mattering in the real world.

*@www.whosnotwinning.com*


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 29, 2019)

Kilroy2 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...



Another sucker for the dictatorship if science.....as if the motivation of the science community is unconstrained by special interests.

I've watched hundreds of bozo's post up these science consensus links for over 10 years in this forum. These people take bows when they do it too!

Unfortunately for them, nobody is impressed outside the field of science. AGW has not transcended anywhere outside it's own field. How do we know that with 100% certainty?

1) Climate treaties/summits are only symbolic.

2) Congress shows zero interest in climate change action.....which means the public is yawning.

3) Renewable energy is still fringe ( it's actually a joke )

4) In any poll of voter concerns, the issue is waaaaaaaay down the bottom of the list.

5) Overwhelming unpopularity in goofball ideas like the GND.


AGW might be a hot topic in community message boards but virtually nowhere else. Only progressives dont recognize that only a thin little sliver on the public cares about community message boards.

Again....the OP has the political IQ if a small soap dish.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 29, 2019)

Today in REALCLEAR.....

Will The Global Warming Hysterics Never Tire Of Being Wrong?

Youd think after 20 years of utter failure, the climate k00ks would figure out that the standard practice of lobbing bombs has proven to be ghey.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 29, 2019)

Kilroy2 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...





Which of those depend on grant and funding by government and Leftist groups that support global governance?

All of them.



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


What's their motive, you dunce?



Get it now?


----------



## Kilroy2 (Jul 29, 2019)

PoliticalChic said:


> Kilroy2 said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



NASA is a government entity and they are on board with this. People have way more information that you do. Of course if your nose wasn't in the way you could see that you are literally clueless

Man can affect his environment

Ocean levels are rising

Burning coal put additional Carbon Monoxide in the air by burning a solid and turning it into a gas.

Get off that political bandwagon that exist simply exist for denial. 

Post your sources if you have none then don't forget the pointy hat


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 29, 2019)

Kilroy2 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Kilroy2 said:
> ...





NASA lies to support global governance, as you do.



*"NASA Exposed In ‘Massive’ New Climate Data Fraud"*
*NASA Exposed in 'Massive' New Climate Data Fraud | PSI Intl*



I asked you earlier....

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


*What's their motive, you dunce?*


----------



## Kilroy2 (Jul 29, 2019)

skookerasbil said:


> Today in REALCLEAR.....
> 
> Will The Global Warming Hysterics Never Tire Of Being Wrong?
> 
> Youd think after 20 years of utter failure, the climate k00ks would figure out that the standard practice of lobbing bombs has proven to be ghey.



Yet after 20 years it is still being discussed


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 29, 2019)

Kilroy2 said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Today in REALCLEAR.....
> ...





The UN is the greatest supporter of global governance.

It was created by Jos. Stalin for exactly that purpose.


The U.N. charter was authored by a communist, the first U.N. Secretary-general was a communist, and the U.N., from the beginning, was designed to be a Union of World Socialist Republics.


Stalin's spy, Alger Hiss  was the leading force in the designing of the United Nations. He was secretary of the Dumbarten Oaks Conversations from August to October of 1944 where most of the preliminary planning for the U.N. was done. He was Roosevelt's right-hand man in February of 1945 at Yalta where the postwar boundaries of Europe were drawn (Roosevelt was a dying man at the time. His death came only ten weeks later). At Yalta it was agreed that the Soviet Union would have three votes (one each for Russia, Ukraine, and Byelorussia) in the U.N. General Assembly, even though the United States had only one.


.... three years later. Alger Hiss was exposed as a communist spy and sent to prison. Only then did people understand why the emblem of the United Nations looked so much like the emblem of the Soviet Union.

What The U.N. Doesn't Want You To Know

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/un_doesnt_want_you_to_know.htm








 


Quite a coincidence, huh?


----------



## Markle (Jul 29, 2019)

Kilroy2 said:


> *NASA is a government entity and they are on board with this. People have way more information that you do.* Of course if your nose wasn't in the way you could see that you are literally clueless
> 
> Man can affect his environment
> 
> ...



My highlights above in blue.

Where did NASA get their figures?

*As you know, Professor Phil Jones was the center of the Global Warming Scam at East Anglia University.  Their program was considered the epitome of Global Warming Information.  The disclosure of thousands of e-mails proving their efforts to conceal information discredit and even prevent opposing views from being published has wrecked the scam, hopefully forever.  Data used by the United Nations IPCC and NASA findings came from EAU.*

*14th February, 2010*

* Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

Data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing (it has now been disclosed that all the “raw data” was DUMPED! 

There has been no global warming since 1995 

Warming periods have happened before - but NOT due to man-made changes
*
Phil Jones admitted his record keeping is 'not as good as it should be. 

WHAT????

[…]

*Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.*

Phil Jones has said that he considered suicide for his part in this worldwide scam.

Let us also recall: The e-mails leaked in the fall of 2009 allow us to trace the machinations of a small but influential band of British and US climate scientists who played the lead role in the IPCC reports.  It appears that this group, which controlled access to basic temperature data, was able to produce a "warming" by manipulating the analysis of the data, but refused to share information on the basic data or details of their analysis with independent scientists who requested them -- in violation of Freedom of Information laws.  In fact, they went so far as to keep any dissenting views from being published -- by monopolizing the peer-review process, aided by ideologically cooperative editors of prestigious journals, like _Science _and _Nature_. 

We learn from the e-mails that the ClimateGate gang was able to "hide the decline" [of global temperature] by applying what they termed as "tricks," and that they intimidated editors and forced out those judged to be "uncooperative."  No doubt, thorough investigations, now in progress or planned, will disclose the full range of their nefarious activities.  But it is clear that this small cabal was able to convince much of the world that climate disasters were impending -- unless drastic steps were taken.  Not only were most of the media, public, and politicians misled, but so were many scientists, national academies of science, and professional organizations -- and even the Norwegian committee that awarded the 2007 Peace Prize to the IPCC and Al Gore, the chief apostle of climate alarmism.

Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Daily Mail Online


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 29, 2019)

Markle said:


> Kilroy2 said:
> 
> 
> > *NASA is a government entity and they are on board with this. People have way more information that you do.* Of course if your nose wasn't in the way you could see that you are literally clueless
> ...





The dunderheads have been beaten into compliance.

They bend the neck and the knee to big government.


----------



## Kilroy2 (Jul 29, 2019)

PoliticalChic said:


> Kilroy2 said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...




Nose bleed

You quote a story from a writer who quotes the story from another writer who writes about this guy who supposedly has this data for fraud but the story still states that his guys data hasn't been collaborated

Quote  -  The data has been carefully analysed by a respected data computation expert Professor Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert and is being made publicly available for independent verification.

So they quote another story from a analysis by a professor and now of what he says has been verified. 

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Professor Ewert’s findings *seem* to show

It is amazing how the right gets it so wrong


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 29, 2019)

Kilroy2 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...




The warmers are winning.

That's why they keep altering the historical record...….


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 29, 2019)

Kilroy2 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Kilroy2 said:
> ...




Trust me s0n......nobody out there is worried about 3mm of sea rise. Well some are worrying but its but a sliver of the population. Same with burning coal......the Chinese are opening 2 new coal plants every month between now and 2030. I mean c'mon now......even if there was a way to prove the man made theory, it wouldn't matter anyway. Doy…...you think people are ready to give up their cell phones. Ride bikes 2 hours to work? Pay double for their electricity bills? Its not about the science...….its about the politics. If one is an AGW guy, they need to emerge from the bubble and work to have a higher political IQ than that of a hand ball.


----------



## Kilroy2 (Jul 29, 2019)

Markle said:


> Kilroy2 said:
> 
> 
> > *NASA is a government entity and they are on board with this. People have way more information that you do.* Of course if your nose wasn't in the way you could see that you are literally clueless
> ...



* Data used by the United Nations IPCC and NASA findings came from EAU.*

How do you know that NASA used that EAU because the story does not mention it.

The fact of the matter NASA has its ways to gather data and they do not depend on one source or one scientist. IT is usually from various sources that and they probably have their own way. 

Here the deal if NASA can put a man on the moon they can figure out global warming

Here the 2nd deal climate deniers depend on temperature readings to deny global warming

Temperature reading is not the issue

The issue is rising water levels and the levels of carbon dioxide

Focusing on Temperature reading is fraught with peril and how well some people collect the data is missing the point

 NASA has its own scientist and they are a little bit better than college professors who do not have the resources of the government


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 29, 2019)

Kilroy2 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Kilroy2 said:
> ...









How many times must you be shown the truth before you recognize it, you dunce????



As long as you don't mind being led by the ring in your nose you will remain as sentient as a stump.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 29, 2019)

Kilroy2 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...



Useless effort.. NONE of those orgs ever polled or asked their membership to approve those statements. Other than maybe the IPCC which as I posted has a mission statement BIASED from the get-go...

A little story that's true about "organization endorsements".. You listed the AGU... THere's an Australian equivalent of the AGU that put their mission statement up for membership review.. The fight lasted almost a year, and in the END -- they dropped the update and revision because there WAS NO AGREEABLE position for the majority of members that weighed in... True story...

One of the 2 professional groups I belong to has a GW/CC statement. NOBODY was ever polled or contacted. We just shake our heads and take the reduced insurance, and breaks on rental cars and travel and other perks and attend the conferences and write the papers...

BTW -- US Global Change Research Institute??  It's a POLITICAL org started by Obama to get top placement in Google searches on GW/CC...


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 29, 2019)

Kilroy2 said:


> Man can affect his environment



No shit... 



Kilroy2 said:


> Ocean levels are rising



At a rate of 0.1" per year.. With no noticeable ACCELERATION.. It's been this way since roughly the beginning of the Indust. Revolution..  No EVIDENCE that the caterwailing catastrophies on the horizon... 




Kilroy2 said:


> Burning coal put additional Carbon Monoxide in the air by burning a solid and turning it into a gas.



Nature (land and ocean) puts 20 TIMES the amount of CO2 into the atmos every year than man does.. And COAL is not the only culprit... Nature also sinks somewhat MORE than that and so the total effect of man's CO2 is even less than 1/20 of nature.. The KNOWLEDGE of these numbers have more uncertainty to them than what man does contribute.. And there is NOT a LINEAR relation between additional CO2 and increased surface temp.. The warming power of CO2 is LIMITED by the fact it's contribution to the GreenHouse is already pretty much saturated out... 

And PLEASE, it's NOT Carbon Monoxide.... Coal COULD be just as "clean and green" as the "BIOMASS" option on the enviro-naut "alternative list".. But the Feds won't allow because of CO2... CO2 is NOT a pollutant.. You do realize that right? And it's not EVEN CLOSE to be the largest contributor to the GreenHouse that keeps our asses warm enough... 

Do you KNOW what the MAJOR GreenHouse gas is???  Hint -- it's ALSO "not a pollutant"..... 



Kilroy2 said:


> Get off that political bandwagon that exist simply exist for denial.



Can't.. That political bandwagon is the ONLY THING that keeps this circus rolling. It's become a tool for demagogues and no-nothings to increase their control and power on damn near EVERYTHING... 



Kilroy2 said:


> Post your sources if you have none then don't forget the pointy hat



I've sourced so MUCH material in this thread that you have NEVER read or commented on, I really don't BLAME folks for not sourcing... It's hard to expect much actual discussion from folks that confuse CO and CO2....


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 29, 2019)

"Man" is charged for 18% of our CO2 footprint because of JUST "domestic cattle"... Ignoring the vast HERDS of farting buffalo, moose, deer and groundhogs that these animals replaced... So the "accounting" is more than a bit whompus...


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 29, 2019)

skookerasbil said:


> Trust me s0n......nobody out there is worried about 3mm of sea rise. Well some are worrying but its but a sliver of the population.



What most folks don't realize is that that this rather CONSTANT rate of sea level rise
 is SO LOW -- that the last time I looked at the science, more than 40% of "sea level expansion" was due SOLELY TO





........  thermal expansion.. NOT "additional water"... When you see rapid ACCELERATIONS in the rate of sea level rise -- y'all have the green light to crap your pants....


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 29, 2019)

Kilroy2 said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Today in REALCLEAR.....
> ...



Certainly NOT as vigorously as it was 20 years ago.. Or even 15 years ago.. It's LOSING traction not because of a political battle, but because the predictions and projections are NOT OCCURRING... 

That's why -- if you FOLLOWED THIS science for 30 years -- you wouldn't still be the last kamikaze group on the island that doesn't know "the war is over".. For now, anyways... 

All those CATASTROPHIC projections that still LIVE on the inter webs????  They've been pretty much downgraded to a "problem" -- NOT a planet ending catastrophe.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 29, 2019)

Kilroy2 said:


> NASA is a government entity and they are on board with this.



Bullshit.. There's been petitions from big name NASA scientists DENOUNCING the misrepresentation of the science to the public.. None of the signers were against the research or the science.. They were OPPOSING the propaganda..... 

And NASA manages the fleet of expensive hi tech weather satellites that provide the MOST CONSISTENT readings of surface temperature.. Areas of NASA are complaining that these satellites USED to agree with the land based measurement, but NO LONGER DO -- because SOME parts of NASA (and NOAA) are fucking with data..  Even the hundred year old data.. 

Former Astronauts & NASA Employees Letter on Global Warming


The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr.
NASA Administrator
NASA Headquarters
Washington, D.C. 20546-0001

Dear Charlie,

We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a *catastrophic impact* on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their *disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts,* coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.

*The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.*

As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.

For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.

Thank you for considering this request.

Sincerely,

(Attached signatures)

CC: Mr. John Grunsfeld, Associate Administrator for Science

CC: Ass Mr. Chris Scolese, Director, Goddard Space Flight Center

Ref: Letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, dated 3-26-12, regarding a request for NASA to refrain from making unsubstantiated claims that human produced CO2 is having a catastrophic impact on climate change.

/s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack – JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years

/s/ Larry Bell – JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years

/s/ Dr. Donald Bogard – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years

/s/ Jerry C. Bostick – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 23 years

/s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman – JSC, Scientist – astronaut, 5 years

/s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years

/s/ Dr. Kenneth Cox – JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years

/s/ Walter Cunningham – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 7, 8 years

/s/ Dr. Donald M. Curry – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Leading Edge, Thermal Protection Sys., Engr. Dir., 44 years

/s/ Leroy Day – Hdq. Deputy Director, Space Shuttle Program, 19 years

/s/ Dr. Henry P. Decell, Jr. – JSC, Chief, Theory & Analysis Office, 5 years

/s/Charles F. Deiterich – JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years

/s/ Dr. Harold Doiron – JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years

/s/ Charles Duke – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 16, 10 years

/s/ Anita Gale

/s/ Grace Germany – JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years

/s/ Ed Gibson – JSC, Astronaut Skylab 4, 14 years

/s/ Richard Gordon – JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years

/s/ Gerald C. Griffin – JSC, Apollo Flight Director, and Director of Johnson Space Center, 22 years

/s/ Thomas M. Grubbs – JSC, Chief, Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Branch, 31 years

/s/ Thomas J. Harmon

/s/ David W. Heath – JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years

/s/ Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. – JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 3 years

/s/ James R. Roundtree – JSC Branch Chief, 26 years

/s/ Enoch Jones – JSC, Mgr. SE&I, Shuttle Program Office, 26 years

/s/ Dr. Joseph Kerwin – JSC, Astronaut, Skylab 2, Director of Space and Life Sciences, 22 years

/s/ Jack Knight – JSC, Chief, Advanced Operations and Development Division, MOD, 40 years

/s/ Dr. Christopher C. Kraft – JSC, Apollo Flight Director and Director of Johnson Space Center, 24 years

/s/ Paul C. Kramer – JSC, Ass.t for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir., 34 years

/s/ Alex (Skip) Larsen

/s/ Dr. Lubert Leger – JSC, Ass’t. Chief Materials Division, Engr. Directorate, 30 years

/s/ Dr. Humbolt C. Mandell – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Program Control and Advance Programs, 40 years

/s/ Donald K. McCutchen – JSC, Project Engineer – Space Shuttle and ISS Program Offices, 33 years

/s/ Thomas L. (Tom) Moser – Hdq. Dep. Assoc. Admin. & Director, Space Station Program, 28 years

/s/ Dr. George Mueller – Hdq., Assoc. Adm., Office of Space Flight, 6 years

/s/ Tom Ohesorge

/s/ James Peacock – JSC, Apollo and Shuttle Program Office, 21 years

/s/ Richard McFarland – JSC, Mgr. Motion Simulators, 28 years

/s/ Joseph E. Rogers – JSC, Chief, Structures and Dynamics Branch, Engr. Directorate,40 years

/s/ Bernard J. Rosenbaum – JSC, Chief Engineer, Propulsion and Power Division, Engr. Dir., 48 years

/s/ Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt – JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 years

/s/ Gerard C. Shows – JSC, Asst. Manager, Quality Assurance, 30 years

/s/ Kenneth Suit – JSC, Ass’t Mgr., Systems Integration, Space Shuttle, 37 years

/s/ Robert F. Thompson – JSC, Program Manager, Space Shuttle, 44 years/s/ Frank Van Renesselaer – Hdq., Mgr. Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, 15 years

/s/ Dr. James Visentine – JSC Materials Branch, Engineering Directorate, 30 years

/s/ Manfred (Dutch) von Ehrenfried – JSC, Flight Controller; Mercury, Gemini & Apollo, MOD, 10 years

NASA Global Warming Stance Blasted By 49 Astronauts, Scientists Who Once Worked At Agency | HuffPost

NOTE: They are not embarrassed by SCIENCE -- they are embarrassed by the FEAR-MONGERING and horror story PROJECTIONS of future global disaster that ARE NOT "settled science"..  After 30 years of studying this -- that's my conclusion as well...


----------



## abu afak (Jul 29, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> *At a rate of 0.1" per year.. With no noticeable ACCELERATION.. It's been this way since roughly the beginning of the Indust. Revolution..*  No EVIDENCE that the caterwailing catastrophies on the horizon...


1. You're self-impeaching by acknowledging the rate only SINCE the Industrial Revolution!

2. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





3. And even your post/admission is a LIE.
It is accelerating, with 80% of the gain in the last 60 years.







You Dishonest clown.
You have a 3 digit IQ so You must know better after all these years/research.
I knew immediately it was.

Pretty much Everything you posted on this page was False and/or Misleading.
You need to be removed.
More coming.


* The JOKE NASA letter signed by (who knows) a Very FEW Flight engineers, etc, we don't even know are scientists, much less Climate scientists. Just a few partisans.
Call us when you get a few Thousand more or ones with Climate credentials.*

`


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 29, 2019)

Yo Kilroy....you've just been totally trainwrecked by FlaCal.....again, the whole "every scientific society concurs...." narrative is over 10 years old now. Still nobody cares. No interest amongst the public for climate change action = the science isnt mattering


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 29, 2019)

abu afak said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > *At a rate of 0.1" per year.. With no noticeable ACCELERATION.. It's been this way since roughly the beginning of the Indust. Revolution..*  No EVIDENCE that the caterwailing catastrophies on the horizon...
> ...



Before Mauna Loa --- ALL the ancient CO2 estimates came from tree rings, preserved vegetation and ice cores.. Literally HUNDREDS of studies that could only have the ability to produce mean readings and without resolution to SHOW variance over relatively short (less than a couple hundred years) periods of times.. So tacking on a MODERN INSTRUMENTATION record to these "long term averages" is NOT a science ploy any academic could get away with....

It's for "show" and to (as Al Gore put it) to "play on YOUR FEARS"....

And if you actually look at HIGH RESOLUTION Ice Core studies, NOT just ANY ice core study, you WILL SEE large amounts of variance and uncertainty.... Just reproducing the MEANS of these studies -- is fully dishonest...

Ancient proxies are tricky deals. And their uselfullness to draw comparisons of ancient CO2 to modern instruments is extremely iffy...






Fig. 14) Kouwenberg (2004) Figure 5.4: Reconstruction of paleo-atmospheric CO2 levels when stomatal frequency of fossil needles is converted to CO2 mixing ratios using the relation between CO2 and TSDL as quantified in the training set. Black line represents a 3 point running average based on 3–5 needles per depth. Grey area indicates the RMSE in the calibration. White diamonds are data measured in the Taylor Dome ice core (Indermühle et al., 1999); white squares CO2 measurements from the Law Dome ice-core (Etheridge et al., 1996). Inset: Training set of TSDL response of Tsuga heterophylla needles from the Pacific Northwest region to CO2 changes over the past century







A new stomatal proxy-based record of CO2 concentrations ([CO2]), based onBetula nana(dwarf birch)leaves from the Hässeldala Port sedimentary sequence in south-eastern Sweden, is presented. The recordis of high chronological resolution and spans most of Greenland Interstadial 1 (GI-1a to 1c, Allerød pollenzone), Greenland Stadial 1 (GS-1, Younger Dryas pollen zone) and the very beginning of the Holocene(Preboreal pollen zone). The record clearly demonstrates that i) [CO2] were significantly higher thanusually reported for the Last Termination and ii) the overall pattern of CO
2 evolution through the studiedtime period is fairly dynamic, with significant abrupt fluctuations in [CO2] when the climate moved frominterstadial to stadial state and vice versa

A new loss-on-ignition chemical record (used here as a proxyfor temperature) lends independent support to the Hässeldala Port [CO2] record. The large-amplitude fluctuations around the climate change transitions may indicate unstable climates and that “tipping-point” situations were involved in Last Termination climate evolution. The scenario presented here is in contrast to [CO2]records reconstructed from air bubbles trapped in ice, which indicate lower concen-trations and a gradual, linear increase of [CO2] through time. The prevalent explanation for the mainclimate forcer during the Last Termination being ocean circulation patterns needs to re-examined, and a larger role for atmospheric [CO2] considered






*So be a good Doobie and go track down EXACTLY WHAT STUDY was used for the ancient data in the graph you provided.....  As specially about ice core studies of past CO2 see E.G. 


Ice cores and climate change - Publication - British Antarctic Survey






Abrupt climate changes
The climate changes described above were huge, but relatively gradual. However, ice cores have provided us with evidence that abrupt changes are also possible. During the last glacial period, Greenland experienced a sequence of very fast warmings (see Fig. 5 overleaf). The temperature increased by more than 10°C within 40 years. Other records show us that major changes in atmospheric circulation and climate were experienced all around the northern hemisphere. Antarctica and the Southern Ocean experienced a different pattern, consistent with the idea that these rapid jumps were caused by sudden changes in the transport of heat in the ocean. At this time, there was a huge ice sheet (the Laurentide) over northern North America. Freshwater delivered from the ice sheet to the North Atlantic was able periodically to disrupt the overturning of the ocean, causing the transport of tropical heat to the north to reduce and then suddenly increase again. While this mechanism cannot occur in the same way in today’s world, it does show us that, at least regionally, the climate is capable of extraordinary changes within a human lifetime – rapid switches we certainly want to avoid experiencing.
*
What you GET out of an ice core study depends on WHERE you took it (Greenland or Antarctica) and how many slices you took to study over the period of time you're studying...

So just dummying up a SCARY LOOKING one doesn't sway science in the least SpongeBob...




*
*


----------



## Kilroy2 (Jul 29, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> Kilroy2 said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



well I do not know the charter for each of these organization, I just responded to the political chic rant about something but I can remember what it was but it was probably about consensus. I don't know how they reached there decision but a decision was reached. If you don't agree then hey that what democracy is about. If u do not buy global warming that your prerogative but it is obvious other do and that is there prerogative.


----------



## otto105 (Jul 29, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



So, after this post there's a scientific organization ready to find that CW/CC is not happening due to man-made emissions...I mean you put the facts (as you cut and paste) them out there....


When can we expect that this organization will read your posts?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 29, 2019)

Kilroy2 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Kilroy2 said:
> ...



How they ARRIVED at the decision to weigh in about "feelings" of GW, WITHOUT the review or support of their actual scientist members, is that their FIELD is HIGHLY funded by govt bucks. And the Admin types in the front office think it's VERY GOOD business to please the folks who fund the science.. Scientists are more skeptical about money in exchange for patronage...


----------



## Kilroy2 (Jul 29, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> Kilroy2 said:
> 
> 
> > Man can affect his environment
> ...



↑
Man can affect his environment
No shit... 

*well we can agree on something *

↑
Ocean levels are rising
At a rate of 0.1" per year.. With no noticeable ACCELERATION.. It's been this way since roughly the beginning of the Indust. Revolution.. No EVIDENCE that the caterwailing catastrophies on the horizon... 

*Nasa says sea levels have risen in the 3.6 in in the last 20 something years based on there data. IT may be small but I guess you do agree that Ocean levels are rising.* * I guess it really how you put it.*


*So I guess people dying in Katrina has no significant meaning other than they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was man that decided to drain the swamp and build there and put up levees to keep the water away. Lasted for a while*


↑
Burning coal put additional Carbon Monoxide in the air by burning a solid and turning it into a gas.
Nature (land and ocean) puts 20 TIMES the amount of CO2 into the atmos every year than man does.. And COAL is not the only culprit... Nature also sinks somewhat MORE than that and so the total effect of man's CO2 is even less than 1/20 of nature.. The KNOWLEDGE of these numbers have more uncertainty to them than what man does contribute.. And there is NOT a LINEAR relation between additional CO2 and increased surface temp.. The warming power of CO2 is LIMITED by the fact it's contribution to the GreenHouse is already pretty much saturated out... 

The atmosphere naturally has CO2 and prior to the industrial revolution it was steady as the earth balances it naturally. The problem is when mans activities increase this CO2 content so if your argument is nature put it there and man puts it there then obviously man's contribution can unbalance what is natural. Please don't waste your time in repeating the obvious. This is a discussion about what man does. It is obvious man has procreated and his activities release more CO2 content into the atmosphere basically upsetting the balance of nature. Your statement NO SHIT attest to that.  


And PLEASE, it's NOT Carbon Monoxide.... Coal COULD be just as "clean and green" as the "BIOMASS" option on the enviro-naut "alternative list".. But the Feds won't allow because of CO2... CO2 is NOT a pollutant.. You do realize that right? And it's not EVEN CLOSE to be the largest contributor to the GreenHouse that keeps our asses warm enough... 

Yeah Yeah carbon monoxide carbon dixoide 
It may be one day they will figure it out but right now it is economics.  The government is making them be more efficient. Still it cost money and they may not be willing to pay that price. They would prefer not to but that what the government is for. 

Do you KNOW what the MAJOR GreenHouse gas is??? Hint -- it's ALSO "not a pollutant"..... 

By definition it is considered a pollutant and legally it is regulated. Man has contributed to adding CO2 to the atmosphere due to it combustion of fossil fuel activities and as such I have no problem of EPA regulating it.
↑
Get off that political bandwagon that exist simply exist for denial.
Can't.. That political bandwagon is the ONLY THING that keeps this circus rolling. It's become a tool for demagogues and no-nothings to increase their control and power on damn near EVERYTHING... 

Ditto but I would add it gives others the right to deny when control is necessary in a world where people are out of control.



 .


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 29, 2019)

otto105 said:


> So, after this post there's a scientific organization ready to find that CW/CC is not happening due to man-made emissions...I mean you put the facts (as you cut and paste) them out there....



You are so stalled out on the VERY BASICS of this issue.. I've already CONCEDED that some warming is happening (actually a pretty trivial amount no matter WHO measures it) and that man does play a role.. Almost EVERY scientist goes THAT far --- including my denier ass.... 

But you have no ability to think or operate beyond that ONE QUESTION... What are the numbers? How WARM is it gonna get? How HIGH will the seas rise? How much will weather "intensify"? Do the models ACTUALLY PREDICT anything useful to forward-looking public policy?

Until you understand the arguments AGAINST the more catastrophic predictions that you are afraid of --- you're gonna just HAVE to buckle up and study some science and not get talking points from politicos and mainstream media.. It's NOT hard science to understand ancient proxy temp studies or examine temperature and CO2 charts critically.. There are about 20 different disciplines in Climate Science.. So a LOT of different skills are involved.. Not JUST folks with "climate science" degrees.

But reading these studies is NOT as difficult as reading medical or raw physics papers.. If you're gonna INSIST on beating up on "deniers" -- invest some time.. You'll be far less SCARED and frightened.. That's for certain...

Here's an example that I referenced above.. Details of using "stomatic frequency" as a proxy measuring ancient CO2 is VERY straight forward and easy... AND -- it's relatively new and SEEMS to be a much measurement than ice cores or tree rings.  Try it..

Promise it won't hurt... LOL.....

In the graph below, notice the difference in the FINE DETAIL of CO2 fluctuations that you can find more easily with THIS technique than with ice cores...

Using plant stomata to determine carbon dioxide concentrations over the past 15,000 years

*Plant fossils obtained from sedimentary rocks and peat deposits are a relatively new tool being used to unravel Earth's carbon dioxide (CO2) history. Tiny pores on plant leaves and needles called stomata regulate carbon dioxide absorption and water vapor release. Stomata numbers decrease during times of high atmospheric CO2, and increase when atmospheric CO2 is low.


Nature's CO2 meter:

 A standardized way of counting stomata-- called the stomatal index ( SI [%] )-- has been found to be a good way to estimate the CO2 content of the atmosphere when the plant was alive. The SI-CO2 relationship varies according to plant species, habitat altitude, and other factors.

Because plant stomata numbers do not change after the leaves or needles fall from the parent plant, they make a good indicator or proxy of atmospheric CO2 in Earth's past. What they show is that the popular belief that CO2 levels prior to the Industrial Revolution were a steady 280 ppm (parts per million) may be incorrect.
*
*As illustrated below, studies of stomata for recent and fossilized plants show that atmospheric CO2 levels over the last 15,000 years have been higher and much more variable than previously supposed. Much of what we think we know about CO2 levels of the past 800,000 years is based on the ice core record.*








A lot less difficult than general articles in Scientific American which has an EXTREMELY wide readership.. If you're concerned about GW/CC -- have at it...


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 29, 2019)

Kilroy2 said:


> *Nasa says sea levels have risen in the 3.6 in in the last 20 something years based on there data. IT may be small but I guess you do agree that Ocean levels are rising.* * I guess it really how you put it.*



3.6 of what? inches? millimeters?  "20 something"??  

There was a change in the sea level rise rate when SATELLITES became capable of measuring it.. Previous to that, the primary method of measurement was tidal gauges and the vast majority of those ONLY measured the sea level rise (SLR) at the shoreline.. 

With satellites, we're finding that virtually NO ocean is flat or statically flat.. And that some parts of the oceans are rising MUCH HIGHER than the shores where the tide gauges were/are.. The rate from the tide gauge era was 1.8 to 2.2mm per year.. LESS than 0.1 inch.. With satellites, the measurement in more like 2.8 to 3.2mm per year.. 

One could argue that measuring NEAR SHORE is MORE important than measuring speed bumps at the middle of an ocean basin.. 

But the important take-away is that using EITHER METHOD, does not show the accelerations that is predicted by the more catastrophic theories within the GW/CC field... *You're not gonna reach the NY Times version of doomsday with 4 to 8 FEET of SLR by 2100 at these rates with NO appreciable accelerations in the data.. *

So NASA is probably quoting the satellite era only number because that's the SCARIER number. But it's still just over an inch/decade and like I said -- a huge chunk of that small number is not from MORE WATER.. It's from the natural expansion of volume due to the small temperature change in the past few decades...


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 29, 2019)

Kilroy2 said:


> By definition it is considered a pollutant and legally it is regulated



If you had been willing and able to answer my question (you never do) about what gas is the PRIMARY GHouse gas -- you'd have a chance to understand that Ghouse Gases are NOT SCIENTIFICALLY pollutants... 

*The MAJOR GHouse gas is simple water vapor.*. Humidity and clouds. FAR outweighs the effects of CO2... 

Water is NOT a pollutant and neither is CO2..* CO2 comes out of your mouth at concentrations 6 to  10 times HIGHER than the 415ppm in the atmosphere.. Is your BREATHE a toxic or dangerous pollutant in concentrations less than in your lungs?? *

Only reason CO2 is now regulated is NOT science.. It's in SPITE of science and the definitions of toxic/dangerous pollutants.. It's because A JUDGE RULED it to be a pollutant because he was favorable to the govt case... 

*It's STILL not labeled as a pollutant when it's in a lab or on a truck for transport.*. ONLY when it comes to misusing science to SKEW around with national energy policy.... Because a judge says so... It's laughable..


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 30, 2019)

I'm laughing.....we have some people who think the public us sitting home at dinner chatting about a few millimeters if sea rise over 20 years! Oy....only those who tend to the hysterical go there. Absolutely on nobody's radar....the proof of which is overwhelming which I detailed a couple of pages back.

These people might just as well be standing in the middle of Siberia buck naked on a stool shaking a bananna at the world . Nobody is paying attention and let's face it....anybody consumed with sea level rise definitely needs some real responsibilities in life.


----------



## Kilroy2 (Jul 30, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> Kilroy2 said:
> 
> 
> > By definition it is considered a pollutant and legally it is regulated
> ...



You changing the subject and trying to broaden it to other green house effects

misdirection is the rights way

Carbon dioxide is  considered a pollutant and you do know that
because that what I was talking about.  When the it is associated with cars, plants and other things that humans do which involves burning fossil fuels it is a pollutant.

Stop acting dumb and changing the subject. If you have nothing then just say so.

Taking about other green house gases is irrelevant

Global warming caused by human is the topic

You want to talk about thinks that are know

So are you saying that carbon dioxide when caused by human activity when burning fossil fuel is not a pollutant
* 

Yet you turn around and say "Only reason CO2 is now regulated is NOT science.. It's in SPITE of science and the definitions of toxic/dangerous pollutants.. It's because A JUDGE RULED it to be a pollutant because he was favorable to the govt case..."

well to bad because the EPA its a pollutant and yes the by definition it is regulated by the state who declares it a pollutant

if you do not agree then that is your right but arguing about it is irrelevant because it is not your decision

personally I am glad its is not your decision so if you want to be a denier go for it*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 30, 2019)

Kilroy2 said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Kilroy2 said:
> ...



*Carbon dioxide is considered a pollutant and you do know that*

Sounds serious!

Who regulates how much we can emit?
What is the penalty for going over that limit?

Link?


----------



## Kilroy2 (Jul 30, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> Kilroy2 said:
> 
> 
> > *Nasa says sea levels have risen in the 3.6 in in the last 20 something years based on there data. IT may be small but I guess you do agree that Ocean levels are rising.* * I guess it really how you put it.*
> ...




Quote - So NASA is probably quoting the satellite era only number because that's the SCARIER number. But it's still just over an inch/decade and like I said -- a huge chunk of that small number is not from MORE WATER.. It's from the natural expansion of volume due to the small temperature change in the past few decades



3.6 in is pretty s small over a 20 year period but it is obvious but it seem you really do like to argue over the small things

You say it caused by small temperature changes over the past decades of natural expansion which is partially true and you do admit that it is a small temperature changes but you do not mention the melting ice 

Melting of land-based ice, such as glaciers and ice sheets  such as in the Arctic where it is know that the arctic ice is thinning. Thus the first ship *without an ice breaker* was able to make it thru during the *peak* month of winter last year.   

I wonder what will happen if this becomes a much traveled route as it is a shorter trade route between Asia and Europe than going the other direction


----------



## Kilroy2 (Jul 30, 2019)

But you have no ability to think or operate beyond that ONE QUESTION... What are the numbers? How WARM is it gonna get? How HIGH will the seas rise? How much will weather "intensify"? Do the models ACTUALLY PREDICT anything useful to forward-looking public policy?

These are question you cannot even answer all you can do is deny while other make the effort to understand how it will affect future generations

This is about the future and as such it is predictive

but your interested in me and now and what you predict

others disagree


----------



## Kilroy2 (Jul 30, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Kilroy2 said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Learn About the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) | US EPA


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 30, 2019)

Kilroy2 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Kilroy2 said:
> ...



Thanks for the link.

It mentioned reporting, nothing about limits or penalties.

You have a better source to back your claim?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 30, 2019)

skookerasbil said:


> .we have some people who think the public us sitting home at dinner chatting about a few millimeters if sea rise over 20 years! Oy.




And YOU haven't been sitting around chatting about it for a good portion of your life?? I've got the proof dude... 

  And you've chatted about  less important things than a few mm of SLR in 20 years.   LOL


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 30, 2019)

Kilroy2 said:


> 3.6 in is pretty s small over a 20 year period but it is obvious but it seem you really do like to argue over the small things



That's not really a small thing man.. Not with the media and politicos and a few activists in labcoats trying to PANIC the public and spinning yarns about cities underwater and massive relocations.. I take it ALL seriously.. And I decided to dedicate some time to KNOW the details.

That''s why it's important to think and know stuff on this BEYOND the useless questions -- like "is the Earth warming", "is man-made CO2 the culprit".. No sense arguing against the basics.. But it's the DETAILS and numbers and forecasts that really matter.. And you cannot DO THAT without following this circus and the science for a decade or more....


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 30, 2019)

Kilroy2 said:


> Melting of land-based ice, such as glaciers and ice sheets such as in the Arctic where it is know that the arctic ice is thinning. Thus the first ship *without an ice breaker* was able to make it thru during the *peak* month of winter last year.



Melting of ice in Arctic, will not add an inch to the SLRise. Because all of that ice is ALREADY in an ocean.  And ice is not a thermometer. You can melt as much ice in ONE day at 1Deg above freezing as you can with 100 days at 0.01Deg above freezing. The arctic climate is DIFFERENT from the world climate.. It's even different than Antarctic climate. Those important facts get LOST in all the huffing and shouting..

And ACTUALLY, when the ice MELTS up there -- it's a NEGATIVE FEEDBACK on GW that tends to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, because all that open cold water sinks a GINORMOUS amount of atmospheric carbon into the ocean... Almost as good as a virgin rain forest at sinking "excess CO2"....

Back to the previous post... Arguing over just ONE question about GW is stupid because virtually NO ONE DENIES that the Earth is warming by a small tick and that man is partly responsible for it.. Even fucking Exxon Mobil KNOWS this.. T*hat internal report their scientists wrote in the 70s (i think it was 70s) was BETTER PREDICTIONS of the future MAGNITUDE of the warning than all the UN IPCC reports have had in them since then.. The Exxon Mobil scientists NAILED the issue as a concern, but NOT an Armageddon. *

And that's pretty much where the REAL science projections and predictions are headed today..


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 31, 2019)

Kilroy2 said:


> But you have no ability to think or operate beyond that ONE QUESTION... What are the numbers? How WARM is it gonna get? How HIGH will the seas rise? How much will weather "intensify"? Do the models ACTUALLY PREDICT anything useful to forward-looking public policy?
> 
> These are question you cannot even answer all you can do is deny while other make the effort to understand how it will affect future generations
> 
> ...



Lol....s0n....you make the perfect point here.

Nobody can predict which is why nobody cares!

Nobody supports climate change action because they have determined there is waaaaaaaay too much we dont know about. Too, costs matter to most people.....not to progressives.


----------



## abu afak (Jul 31, 2019)

*Energy Secretary Rick Perry contradicts Trump, says humans do play a role in causing climate change*

Energy Secretary Rick Perry contradicts Trump, says humans do play a role in causing climate change 
PUBLISHED 2 HOURS AGO - UPDATED 27 MIN AGO
Matthew J. Belvedere@MATT_BELVEDERE

KEY POINTS

“The climate is changing. Are we part of the reason? Yeah, it is,” says Energy Secretary Rick Perry.
Veering off the Trump administration message, Perry adds, “I’ll let people debate on who’s the bigger problem here.”
Perry says that it’s worth developing Zero-Emissions technology and that the Trump administration has made great strides. (_abu afak: LOL on that last point. He's gone backwards_)
[......]
`


----------



## Kilroy2 (Aug 1, 2019)

PoliticalChic said:


> The UN is the greatest supporter of global governance.
> 
> It was created by Jos. Stalin for exactly that purpose.


So U believe that the UN was created by Jos. Stalin

The UN was created by the Allies to fight the Axis governments during the war. 

Enough said


----------



## Kilroy2 (Aug 1, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Kilroy2 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



How cap and trade works

The  govenment uses a cap permit on greenhouse gas emissions that drive global warming  and is a firm limit on pollution set by the government using a carrot and stick approach. A limit is set and don't ask me how it is set and as long as producers are below that limit they get credits and if they go over they are penalized or tax.  So they can emit under whatever the cap is but over time the cap is reduced.  The idea is to give them time to literally clean up their act. The cost of the caps increase and is another way to encourage them to use cleaner technologies.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 1, 2019)

abu afak said:


> *Energy Secretary Rick Perry contradicts Trump, says humans do play a role in causing climate change*
> 
> Energy Secretary Rick Perry contradicts Trump, says humans do play a role in causing climate change
> PUBLISHED 2 HOURS AGO - UPDATED 27 MIN AGO
> ...



Do pay attention.. NO ONE important denies that "Humans play a role in causing climate change"  -- not even me... But that is not even one of the most important questions to be asked and answered.. I've explained WHY in the past 10 pages or so.. 

If you can not WITH CERTAINTY predict the temp anomaly in 2100 to better than a 16 to 1 range of values, you have NO reasonable science guidance to structure any kind of monumental interdiction plan.. If the radical adjunct theories of "runaway warming" or "temperature trigger points" are not settled science, than this whole freak show is built on propaganda and hysteria and playing on people's fears....


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 1, 2019)

Kilroy2 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Kilroy2 said:
> ...




Cap and trade works well on REAL pollutants where the damage is easily quantified and costed.. And it can be applied on a smaller regional or continental scale.. But there IS no easy way to implement a GLOBAL cap and trade that assesses "damages' and cost equitably and with certainty for CO2...


----------



## abu afak (Aug 1, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> Do pay attention.. NO ONE important denies that "Humans play a role in causing climate change"  -- not even me... But that is not even one of the most important questions to be asked and answered.. I've explained WHY in the past 10 pages or so..
> 
> If you can not WITH CERTAINTY predict the temp anomaly in 2100 to better than a 16 to 1 range of values, you have NO reasonable science guidance to structure any kind of monumental interdiction plan.. If the radical adjunct theories of "runaway warming" or "temperature trigger points" are not settled science, than this whole freak show is built on propaganda and hysteria and playing on people's fears....


Trump I guess is not important.
Alas he is.
He doesn't even believe GW, much less AGW, nor would he recognize those two abbreviations.
(see above)

And kindly remove all 3 Sabotaging TROLL 'replies' from the usual Pieces of shit who make up this Troll mb.
Namely from here
Humans Interbred with Four Extinct Hominin Species, Research Finds

`
`


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 1, 2019)

Kilroy2 said:


> This is about the future and as such it is predictive
> 
> but your interested in me and now and what you predict
> 
> others disagree



Don't get that comment at all.. What am I predicting? All I'm doing is ACCEPTING the settled science, and rejecting the extreme marginal theories of how CO2 takes on SUPERPOWERS beyond it's basic physics and chemistry to destroy the planet... 

THE FUTURE IS the most important part of this science.. There is NO DOUBT about that.. And NUMBERS matter....


----------



## Kilroy2 (Aug 1, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> abu afak said:
> 
> 
> > *Energy Secretary Rick Perry contradicts Trump, says humans do play a role in causing climate change*
> ...



I guess you are saying if they can't predict they should quit

That is not how it goes. The first car produce was really bad but today they have gotten better at making cars

Science is trial and error

you correct your errors

There is nothing to fear but fear itself

People need to know before they can make an informed decision. 


flacaltenn said:


> Kilroy2 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...




Cap and trade is just a method to lead then to cleaner technology over a period of time


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 1, 2019)

abu afak said:


> Trump I guess is not important.
> Alas he is.
> He doesn't even believe GW, much less AGW, nor would he recognize those two abbreviations.
> (see above)



NO Politician I know of has an even basic scholarship of this topic... THEY CERTAINLY do not matter.. And Trump isn't the ONLY one of them reacting to hype and exaggerations...


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 1, 2019)

Kilroy2 said:


> I guess you are saying if they can't predict they should quit



Of course not.. I'm all for an ACTUAL understanding of how the Earth's climate system distributes and stores heat.. We DO NOT have that now.. Too much focus on CO2 to actually IMPROVE the basic models of the thermodynamics of this planet... 

But things in that field have "calmed down".. The blustering and shrill pronouncements are rare nowadays.. And a LOT of great work is getting down with less shouting and playing to the media...


----------



## Kilroy2 (Aug 1, 2019)

Do pay attention.. NO ONE important denies that "Humans play a role in causing climate change" -- not even me... But that is not even one of the most important questions to be asked and answered.. I've explained WHY in the past 10 pages or so.. 

Humanity role in climate change is the point and if things can be done to  save lives that is the motivation


----------



## Wyatt earp (Aug 1, 2019)

francoHFW said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Markle said:
> ...




I hope you get reincarnated as a bird.


.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Aug 1, 2019)

Kilroy2 said:


> Do pay attention.. NO ONE important denies that "Humans play a role in causing climate change" -- not even me... But that is not even one of the most important questions to be asked and answered.. I've explained WHY in the past 10 pages or so..
> 
> Humanity role in climate change is the point and if things can be done to  save lives that is the motivation




so tell us how we going to do it......... and what will the average temperature be?


14c.... 57f?



seems kind of cold



What is the Earth's Average Temperature? - Universe Today

The average surface temperature on Earth is approximately 14°C; but as already noted, this varies. For instance, the hottest temperature ever recorded on Earth was 70.7°C (159°F), which was taken in the Lut Desert of Iran. These measurements were part of a global temperature survey conducted by scientists at NASA’s Earth Observatory during the summers of 2003 to 2009. For five of the seven years surveyed (2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2009) the Lut Desert was the hottest spot on Earth.


----------



## Kilroy2 (Aug 1, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> Kilroy2 said:
> 
> 
> > I guess you are saying if they can't predict they should quit
> ...



I think that they understand how the system distributes and stores heat. 

Again it mans activities that contribute to unbalancing what is arguable a balancing act. 

U seem to want to focus on temperature readings but they have been keeping somewhat accurate records since the late 1800's still that is a drop in the bucket 4 the planet Earth  

The example of Katrina in Louisiana it shows that man though they could build levees to keep the water away forever. But in the end they couldn't. If someone told them that building those levees would cause a large amount of deaths and billions of dollars, they would have laughed


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 1, 2019)

Kilroy2 said:


> Humanity role in climate change is the point and if things can be done to save lives that is the motivation



Why are you LEAPING to "all hands on deck" WITHOUT KNOWING the future magnitude of the problem?  Think that's what leaders do??? 

It could be anywhere from 1 to 6DegC hotter in 2100.. The PLANNING for that range of contingencies is VASTLY different.. And it's REALLY NOT likely the West Antarctic Ice Shelf is gonna totally calve and cause MASSIVE sea level rise... (BTW -- IF it does, it's more likely to be because of the massive volcanic RIFTS recently found under the ice -- so all your CO2 abatement efforts won't STOP IT).... 

The projections are GOING DOWN over the past 20 years -- NOT UP... NOBODY DIES if the marginal theories of accelerated warming and "tipping points" don't start showing any warning.. And RIGHT NOW -- there's really been NO "accelerations" of most anything in the past 30 years we've had satellites up to track all the parameters..



And in fact, we MAY be on the edge of major Solar minimum coming up.. The attention on THAT science news is somewhat eclipsing the newer GW papers at the moment....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 1, 2019)

Kilroy2 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Kilroy2 said:
> ...



Obama never got Cap and Trade passed. 
So nothing about limits or penalties then.

Can't be  much of a pollutant.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 2, 2019)

Kilroy2 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > The UN is the greatest supporter of global governance.
> ...




Educating your brain-dead government school grads is a full time job.


*The U.N. charter was authored by a communist, the first U.N. Secretary-general was a communist, and the U.N., from the beginning, was designed to be a Union of World Socialist Republics.*


Stalin's spy, Alger Hiss  was the leading force in the designing of the United Nations. He was secretary of the Dumbarten Oaks Conversations from August to October of 1944 where most of the preliminary planning for the U.N. was done. He was Roosevelt's right-hand man in February of 1945 at Yalta where the postwar boundaries of Europe were drawn (Roosevelt was a dying man at the time. His death came only ten weeks later). At Yalta it was agreed that the Soviet Union would have three votes (one each for Russia, Ukraine, and Byelorussia) in the U.N. General Assembly, even though the United States had only one.


.... three years later. Alger Hiss was exposed as a communist spy and sent to prison. Only then did people understand why the emblem of the United Nations looked so much like the emblem of the Soviet Union.
What The U.N. Doesn't Want You To Know

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/un_doesnt_want_you_to_know.htm




"A young American diplomat was *the leading force in the designing of the United Nations*. He was secretary of the Dumbarten Oaks Conversations from August to October of 1944 where most of the preliminary *planning for the U.N.* was done. 

He was *Roosevelt's right-hand man in February of 1945 at Yalta where the postwar boundaries of Europe were drawn *(Roosevelt was a dying man at the time. His death came only ten weeks later). 

At Yalta it was agreed that the *Soviet Union would have three votes (one each for Russia, Ukraine, and Byelorussia) in the U.N. General Assembly, even though the United States had only one.* At Yalta much of Europe was placed under the iron heel of communist rule. At Yalta, Churchill, Roosevelt, and *Stalin appointed this young diplomatic shining star to be the first Secretary-general of the U.N. *for the founding conference held in San Francisco,April/June of 1945.

All of this seemed well and good until three years later. *Alger Hiss *was exposed as a communist spy...."
What The U.N. Doesn't Want You To Know
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/un_doesnt_want_you_to_know.htm

Sanity for Superheroes: What The U.N. Doesn't Want You To Know




Declaration of war on the axis nations,* Stalin's most bitter enemy,,* was a requirement for entry to the UN.

*1 January 1942 || The name "United Nations" is coined*
*The Charter was signed on 26 June 1945 by the representatives of the 50 countries. *
*24 October 1945 || The United Nations officially comes into existence*

a. "  [Alger Hiss was appointed acting secretary-general of the U.N. founding conference and was involved in staffing the U.N. by selecting people for employment in the world body. “About fifty showed up as permanent employees and a couple of hundred in part-time assignments,” Shelton says of Hiss’s efforts."                                                                                                 
“Alger Hiss Day” a Reminder of U.N.’s Anti-Americanism

2. And the reason for Stalin's ultimate victory?

Franklin Roosevelt, who played 'Robin' to Stalin's 'Batman.'
FDR knew of the Terror Famine, the genocide, the repression...designed and perpetrated by 'Uncle Joe,'...yet Roosevelt *enveloped Joe Stalin in " the cloak of his popularity..." *Time Magazine, December 17, 1934.






Look familiar, you dunce????


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 2, 2019)

Kilroy2 said:


> Do pay attention.. NO ONE important denies that "Humans play a role in causing climate change" -- not even me... But that is not even one of the most important questions to be asked and answered.. I've explained WHY in the past 10 pages or so..
> 
> Humanity role in climate change is the point and if things can be done to  save lives that is the motivation


Mans impact is less than 2% of the total temperature rise and can not be discerned from noise in the climatic system. There is no emergency. NONE!


----------



## Billy_Bob (Aug 2, 2019)

flacaltenn said:


> And in fact, we MAY be on the edge of major Solar minimum coming up.. The attention on THAT science news is somewhat eclipsing the newer GW papers at the moment....


Correct;

There are now two camps for all intents and purposes.  Those of us who believe that the decrease in energy from the sun and the resulting changes in earths atmosphere will result in 1-2 deg C cooling in the next 60 years and those who believe that AGW will run away despite the energy loss from our sun.

With the ocean heat reserve depleted and the ocean currents going cold globally for about the next 30  years, I'm of the opinion that we are about to cool globally and there is nothing on earth that is going to stop it.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 2, 2019)

Kilroy2 said:


> I think that they understand how the system distributes and stores heat.
> 
> A



Surprisingly no... THey don't have accurate time varying models of how the currents in the atmos and the ocean move heat from equators to the poles and back.. The BASICS are there.  But not comprehensive enough to narrow down the "residency times" of heat retained from forcings like the sun or GHouse gases...

And the modeling today lumps the ENTIRE PLANET into just ONE climate zone, when it's WIDELY known that there are MANY climate zones that respond to temperature forcing in enormously different ways..

Even other cyclic natural events like ocean and polar oscillations are not yet predictable or completely understood... 

 THIS --- is what SHOULD have been worked on for the past 30 years... But instead virtually all the "climate science funding was largely restricted to papers and projects to PROVE that CO2 is the major driver of GW...


----------

