# 13 Times the Scientific Consensus Was WRONG



## JimBowie1958 (Apr 19, 2019)

I got this from a Delingpole article, and I  found this list to be pretty interesting.


 *We would be living through a new Ice Age by the year 2000.*
In 1974, the National Science Board announced: "During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade. Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an endleading into the next ice age."



*We would all die when the ozone layer disappeared.*
Rumors of blind sheep—the increased radiation was thought to cause cataracts—and increased skin cancer stoked public fears. “It’s like AIDS from the sky,” a terrified environmentalist told Newsweek’s staff. Fueled in part by fears of the ozone hole worsening, 24 nations signed the Montreal Protocol limiting the use of CFCs in 1987.

These days, scientists understand a lot more about the ozone hole. They know that it’s a seasonal phenomenon that forms during Antarctica’s spring, when weather heats up and reactions between CFCs and ozone increase. As weather cools during Antarctic winter, the hole gradually recovers until next year.​


*The oceans would be dead.*
*Global Cooling would destroy the world.*
The year 1972 remains infamous in the annals of meteorology for extreme weather events all around the globe. Towards the end of that year, in a letter dated 3 December 1972, two geologists George Kukla and Robert Matthews warned President Nixon that…

…a global deterioration of climate, by order of magnitude larger than any hitherto experienced by civilized mankind is a very real possibility and indeed may be due very soon.​


*Acid rain would destroy our forests.*
a generation ago, acid rain was one of the highest-profile green issues, of concern to all the main campaigning environmental groups and to the general public, who were presented with apocalyptic visions of forests dying and lifeless rivers.

It was also the subject of angry argument between nations – not least between the Scandinavian countries, and Britain. In the mid 1980s, when the row was at its height, Norway and Sweden took very strong objection to the fact the acid rain they were suffering from, which was causing serious problems for their forests and lakes, was largely British in origin.​


*Overpopulation would result in worldwide famine.*
Paul Ehrlich was an entomologist at Stanford University, known to his peers for his groundbreaking studies of the co-evolution of flowering plants and butterflies but almost unknown to the average person. That was about to change. In May, Ehrlich released a quickly written, cheaply bound paperback, _The Population Bomb_. Initially it was ignored. But over time Ehrlich’s tract would sell millions of copies and turn its author into a celebrity. It would become one of the most influential books of the 20th century—and one of the most heatedly attacked.


The first sentence set the tone: “The battle to feed all of humanity is over.” And humanity had lost. In the 1970s, the book promised, “hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death.” No matter what people do, “nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate.”

Published at a time of tremendous conflict and social upheaval, Ehrlich’s book argued that many of the day’s most alarming events had a single, underlying cause: Too many people, packed into too-tight spaces, taking too much from the earth. Unless humanity cut down its numbers—soon—all of us would face “mass starvation” on “a dying planet.”​



*We would deplete our natural resources.*
In the 1970s, the Club of Rome predicted massive shortages of natural resources due to overconsumption and overpopulation, with disastrous effects on human health and material well-being.

In 1980, the Global 2000 Report to the President, wrote: "If present trends continue, the world in 2000 will be more crowded, more polluted, less stable ecologically, and more vulnerable to disruption than the world we live in now. . . . Despite greater material output, the world's people will be poorer in many ways than they are today."​



*We would run out of oil.*
*1909: 25 or 30 years longer*
"Petroleum has been used for less than 50 years, and it is estimated that the supply will last about 25 or 30 years longer. If production is curtailed and waste stopped it may last till the end of the century. The most important effects of its disappearance will be in the lack of illuminants. Animal and vegetable oils will not begin to supply its place. This being the case, the reckless exploitation of oil fields and the consumption of oil for fuel should be checked."

— July 19, 1909 _Titusville Herald_ (Titusville, PA)​
*1937: Gone in 15 years*
Capt. H. A. Stuart, director of the naval petroleum reserves, told the Senate Naval Affairs Committee today the oil supply of this country will last only about 15 years.

"We have been making estimates for the last 15 years,' Stuart said. 'We always underestimate because of the possibility of discovering new oil fields. The best information is that the present supply will last only 15 years. That is a conservative estimate.'"

— March 9, 1937 _Brooklyn Daily Eagle_​

*1956: Ten to fifteen years until peak oil*
"M. King Hubbert of the Shell Development Co. predicted [one year ago] that peak oil production would be reached in the next 10 to 15 years and after that would gradually decline."​



*The polar ice caps would melt.*
The same year that former Vice President Al Gore predicted that the Arctic sea ice could be completely gone, Arctic ice reached its highest level in two years, according to a report by the Danish Meteorological Institute. 


According to that report, which was cited by the Daily Mail (UK) on Aug. 30, “[t]he Arctic ice cap has expanded for the second year in a row.” The U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) confirmed this trend, but didn’t go into as much detail as the Danish Meteorological Institute.


But an examination of ABC, CBS and NBC news programs since the Daily Mail story was published found that all three networks ignored news that Arctic sea ice was at a two-year high.

Yet, the broadcast networks have spent years promoting Gore’s environmental agenda. On Jan. 29, 2013, on NBC “Today,” host Matt Lauer asked Gore, “After years of calling people’s attention to this issue, and now we’ve seen Superstorm Sandy and tornadoes and drought and extreme temperatures, do you feel vindicated?”


In his Dec. 10, 2007 Nobel Prize speech, Gore said “Last September 21, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is "falling off a cliff." One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.”


Meanwhile, the Antarctic Ice cap has been steadily increasing.​

*Manhattan would be underwater.*
New York City underwater? Gas over $9 a gallon? A carton of milk costs almost $13? Welcome to June 12,  2015. Or at least that was the wildly-inaccurate version of 2015 predicted by ABC News exactly seven years ago. Appearing on _Good Morning America _in 2008, Bob Woodruff hyped _Earth 2100_, a special that pushed apocalyptic predictions of the then-futuristic 2015.

The segment included supposedly prophetic videos, such as a teenager declaring, "It's June 8th, 2015. One carton of milk is $12.99." (On the actual June 8, 2015, a gallon of milk cost, on average, $3.39.) Another clip featured this prediction for the current year: "Gas reached over $9 a gallon." (In reality, gas costs an average of $2.75.)​


*People who live in cities will have to wear gas masks.*
In January 1970, _Life_ reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”​
Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in 1970 that “air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles.​


*Nitrogen buildup will make the land unusable.*
Ecologist Kenneth Watt told _Time_ that, “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”​


*“Decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate.”*


Just thought I would throw this one in for fun.

18 spectacularly wrong predictions made around the time of first Earth Day in 1970, expect more this year - AEI

Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.”​


----------



## JoeMoma (Apr 19, 2019)

JimBowie1958 said:


> We would run out of oil.


I suspect if we (humans) keep using oil at the rate we currently us it, we will eventually run out for all practical purposes.  We have gained access to much more oil than thought possible because of improved techniques such as fracking.  How much longer will the oil last, I don't know.  I assume we are not going to run out in my lifetime (0-45 more years.)  I don't think nature is producing the crude oil near as quickly as we a using it.... am I wrong?


----------



## JoeMoma (Apr 19, 2019)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Overpopulation would result in worldwide famine.



How large of a human population can the Earth support? The pop of the Earth has almost tripled since I was a kid (3 billion to about 8.5 billion).


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Apr 19, 2019)

JoeMoma said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Overpopulation would result in worldwide famine.
> ...




Well the metropolitan area of Monaco density would allow about 13 billion people to live in Texas.


----------



## toobfreak (Apr 19, 2019)

JimBowie1958 said:


> I got this from a Delingpole article, and I  found this list to be pretty interesting.
> 
> *We would all die when the ozone layer disappeared.*
> Rumors of blind sheep—the increased radiation was thought to cause cataracts—and increased skin cancer stoked public fears. “It’s like AIDS from the sky,” a terrified environmentalist told Newsweek’s staff. Fueled in part by fears of the ozone hole worsening, 24 nations signed the Montreal Protocol limiting the use of CFCs in 1987. These days, scientists understand a lot more about the ozone hole. They know that it’s a seasonal phenomenon that forms during Antarctica’s spring, when weather heats up and reactions between CFCs and ozone increase. As weather cools during Antarctic winter, the hole gradually recovers until next year.​


I'll only address this one topic to say you are quite wrong.  CFCs are totally man-made and if they weren't there in the first place, ther'd be no hole over Antarctica.  There is still a weak zone over Brazil.  We barely averted a disaster had we continued to churn out CFCs.  Without ozone, all land life would perish.  Now we have to just worry about the HFCs that replaced them.   You just don't mess with the ozone.


----------



## JoeMoma (Apr 19, 2019)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Overpopulation would result in worldwide famine.



How large of a human population can the Earth support? The pop of the Earth has almost tripled since I was a kid (3 billion to about 8.5 billion).


JimBowie1958 said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


I would think that support for that population would have to come elsewhere, such as farmland to produce food for those 13 billion even if none of them ever set foot on that farmland.


----------



## mamooth (Apr 19, 2019)

Most of those were not scientific consensus. The cooling predictions were by deniers.

For two of them, ozone and acid rain, the predictions were for what would happen if nothing was done. That is, they're fine examples of the consensus being correct, and thus saving our asses by prompting us to action.

So, the point of the thread seems to be:

1. The real consensus science is pretty awesome

2. Never trust the hysterical cooling predictions of global warming deniers, or the hysterical predictions of our nutty conservative MSM.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Apr 19, 2019)

mamooth said:


> Most of those were not scientific consensus. The cooling predictions were by deniers.
> 
> For two of them, ozone and acid rain, the predictions were for what would happen if nothing was done. That is, they're fine examples of the consensus being correct, and thus saving our asses by prompting us to action.
> 
> ...


Wrong. Global cooling turned out to be a miscalculation.
Acid rain is still with us. It’s just not as politically convenient for marxists as AGW is because acid rain is too geographically isolated.


----------



## JoeMoma (Apr 19, 2019)

mamooth said:


> Most of those were not scientific consensus. The cooling predictions were by deniers.
> 
> For two of them, ozone and acid rain, the predictions were for what would happen if nothing was done. That is, they're fine examples of the consensus being correct, and thus saving our asses by prompting us to action.
> 
> ...


I don't know what the real consensus is from all the hype in the media.

My Humble Opinion:  Do we have global warming?  Yes.
Is Man responsible for global warming?  Some of it
Will global warming result in "The End of the World"?  No.  There may be some issues that result from the climate change, but adaptation will take place.  For humans, historically, warm had been good for us, cold has been bad.

The extreme predictions from the loony left are usually wrong.  Extreme predictions form the right are also usually wrong, after all they are "extreme" predictions.


----------



## jknowgood (Apr 19, 2019)

JoeMoma said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Overpopulation would result in worldwide famine.
> ...


What liberals are trying do, the Lord will be coming back and there we be no earth to live on.


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 19, 2019)

JoeMoma said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > We would run out of oil.
> ...




the problem with fossil fuels isnt that when they run out but when it takes more to get it than we get

back in the day we just scooped it off the ground or drilled a hole and stood back and now we have to create small earthquakes to get it,,

as with corn gas it takes 1 1/2 gal of fossils to get one gallon of it,,,not sustainable,,,

and soon it will take more than a gallon of fossils to get a gallon of fossils,,,again not sustainable,,,


----------



## mamooth (Apr 19, 2019)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Wrong. Global cooling turned out to be a miscalculation.



And that's why almost no mainstream scientists pushed it. They could see it was bad science, so the consensus was for warming, even back in the 1970s.



> Acid rain is still with us.



And now it's vastly reduced to the point of not being a problem, thanks to the environmentalists. It's a stunning success by the environmentalists. That's one reason conservatives don't want to talk about it.



> It’s just not as politically convenient for marxists as AGW is because acid rain is too geographically isolated.



Environmentalists are proud of their success there. They especially want people to know about the success of the cap-and-trade system for sulfur dioxide emissions that conservatives said couldn't possibly work. Except it does work. No wonder conservatives don't want to talk about it. It demonstrates that conservative talking points about cap-and-trade were false in the past, meaning it's likely they're false now.


----------



## justoffal (Apr 19, 2019)

JimBowie1958 said:


> I got this from a Delingpole article, and I  found this list to be pretty interesting.
> 
> 
> *We would be living through a new Ice Age by the year 2000.*
> ...



It takes 41000 years for the Earth to complete one orbital/weather cycle.
These idiots have been watching the weather
For maybe 140 years with any kind of methodology.  They have always known this
Yet they babble incoherently about the weather.

Jo


----------



## justoffal (Apr 19, 2019)

mamooth said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Wrong. Global cooling turned out to be a miscalculation.
> ...



No one is claiming that science is always wrong. However it is worth noting that every 7 to ten tears major discoveries trash large segments of hitherto "consensus" science.

Jo

Jo


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Apr 19, 2019)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.”


Erlich was an absolute charlatan. I remember having to read his Population Bomb book in jr. high.
It seemed like dire Chicken Little-ism even then.

Btw...here's another dire scientific prediction for you. Polar bears will be mostly extinct by 2050. Polar Bears Mostly Extinct by 2050
In actuality Polar Bear populations have been steadily climbing since the 1970s. Are Polar Bears Really Endangered?

Just like the Southern Poverty Law Center shows it seems fund raising is greatly enhanced when frightening tales filled with apocalyptic fears are sent out to potential donors. The World Wildlife Foundation, Center for Biological Diversity and
Polar Bears International are making extreme claims in order to hype donations from easily frightened dupes.


----------



## jwoodie (Apr 19, 2019)

JoeMoma said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > We would run out of oil.
> ...



Yes.  If oil becomes scare, the price will go up and alternative fuels will be used.


----------



## Indeependent (Apr 19, 2019)

JimBowie1958 said:


> I got this from a Delingpole article, and I  found this list to be pretty interesting.
> 
> 
> *We would be living through a new Ice Age by the year 2000.*
> ...


Scientists also need a paycheck.


----------



## Indeependent (Apr 19, 2019)

JoeMoma said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Overpopulation would result in worldwide famine.
> ...


And that’s just the slums.


----------



## justoffal (Apr 19, 2019)

Eric Arthur Blair said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.”
> ...



I don't give a shit about polar bears. Their main pray animal is the sea lion.... They make so small a mark on that population as 
to be totally insignificant.  All species go extinct sooner or later .. That's what species do. So their population is growing? Good I'm gonna get me a few full sized PB rugs!

Jo


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Apr 19, 2019)

justoffal said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> > Just like the Southern Poverty Law Center shows it seems fund raising is greatly enhanced when frightening tales filled with apocalyptic fears are sent out to potential donors. The World Wildlife Foundation, Center for Biological Diversity and
> ...


Well, there are different methods by which species go extinct.

There can be a species wipe out from catastrophic events, depopulation from excessive predators, or they can evolve into a new species or several.


----------



## justoffal (Apr 19, 2019)

JimBowie1958 said:


> justoffal said:
> 
> 
> > Eric Arthur Blair said:
> ...



Precisely: That process has begun with the polar bears....

Google Image Result for https://i.ytimg.com/vi/U1fyKTq4efg/hqdefault.jpg


----------



## mamooth (Apr 23, 2019)

justoffal said:


> However it is worth noting that every 7 to ten tears major discoveries trash large segments of hitherto "consensus" science.



It's worth noting that your claim there is nonsense.

Can you tell us what has recently trashed the theory of gravity? The germ theory of disease? The round earth theory?



> It takes 41000 years for the Earth to complete one orbital/weather cycle.



And the earth is on the cooling part of that  natural cycle.

Since the natural cycle is for slow cooling, the current fast warming is clearly not part of the natural cycle. If anyone is claiming it is, that person is clearly babbling nonsense, and thus they should be ignored.


----------



## justoffal (Apr 23, 2019)

mamooth said:


> justoffal said:
> 
> 
> > However it is worth noting that every 7 to ten tears major discoveries trash large segments of hitherto "consensus" science.
> ...



The round earth is no theory... Nor are Germs.

Gravity has never been identified. 

You seem to be lost in the woods 
Need any help?

Jo


----------



## RealDave (Apr 23, 2019)

JimBowie1958 said:


> I got this from a Delingpole article, and I  found this list to be pretty interesting.
> 
> 
> *We would be living through a new Ice Age by the year 2000.*
> ...


 What a crock of bullshit posted by a total lying moron.

1)  That ice age was a study put out by one researcher & it was debunked by his perrs.

2)  We had a ozone problem & we solved it by limiting certain emissions.  

3)  We solved acid rain through a cap & Trade on emissions from power plants

My God you are such a pathetic assfuck.   Finding a problem & stating the potential damage & finding a solution to stop it does not make the scientists wrong.


----------



## B. Kidd (Apr 23, 2019)

Environmentalists invented fake news.
Besides, polar bears are doing quite well.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 23, 2019)

In a related note that will be Greek to the irrational denier fools piling on in this thread:

The consensuses  were overturned on evidence, not on the fetishes and superstitions of a bunch of uneducated slobs.


----------



## justoffal (Apr 23, 2019)

B. Kidd said:


> Environmentalists invented fake news.
> Besides, polar bears are doing quite well.



Personally I hate Polar bears.

Jo


----------



## justoffal (Apr 23, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> In a related note that will be Greek to the irrational denier fools piling on in this thread:
> 
> The consensuses  were overturned on evidence, not on the fetishes and superstitions of a bunch of uneducated slobs.



Hear this Dingleberry doofus....

No scientist worth his salt ever calls anything settled.

Even the so called quick temp rise of the industrial age is just a guess based on best available data....with absolutely no legitimate conclusion that we know all of the potential
sources either of heat or CO2.  In addition to that they always neglect the fact that the sun is gradually putting out more local BTUs with each passing orbit. Whatever effect we are having on the climate is apparently about to be overruled by a much larger driver.

Jo


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 23, 2019)

justoffal said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > In a related note that will be Greek to the irrational denier fools piling on in this thread:
> ...


That was an adorable bunch of toddlerish , irrelevant whining completely unrelated to my comments.

I will say it again:

A scientific consensus is not overturned by a bunch of uneducated slobs whining about their politics , superstitions, and fetishes. No, you crybabies are not presenting any real challenge to any accepted theories.

Get off your lazy, dumb asses and produce some science, or STFU. Simple as that.


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 23, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> justoffal said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...




but consensus has nothing to do with science,,,its just a bunch of over educated morons agreeing n something


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 23, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > justoffal said:
> ...


Yes, attention-begging troll, we know.


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 23, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


they have to use consensus  because the science failed,,,


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Apr 23, 2019)

Came across this on FB


----------



## justoffal (Apr 23, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> justoffal said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



First of all nutcase, you know nothing about me. No challenge needs to be presented to what is not fact.  The solar progression is well known .... The fact that climatologists ignore astronomers should alarm any thinking person. Your constant droning of my scientist is bigger than your scientist doesn't work anymore...

There is absolutely no proof that man produced CO2 is responsible for the ppm
Increase.... It's only an assumption and not shared by all climatologists. 

I'm not going to wanted my time showing you what you can easily find yourself but refuse to look at because you have abandoned the search which btw means you have abandoned real science.

Jo


----------



## cnm (Apr 23, 2019)

I think the OP does not understand the meaning of 'consensus'. I mean, pretending two scientists is a 'consensus'.

Ffs.

I think he may be a bit of an old fogey.


----------



## cnm (Apr 23, 2019)

justoffal said:


> There is absolutely no proof that man produced CO2 is responsible for the ppm
> Increase.... It's only an assumption and not shared by all climatologists.


Only by the vast majority of climate scientists.


----------



## cnm (Apr 23, 2019)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Came across this on FB


Tuvalu hasn't far to go and the trend hasn't reversed.


----------



## cnm (Apr 23, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> but consensus has nothing to do with science,,,its just a bunch of over educated morons agreeing n something


Like climate scientists? Well gosh darn it, who'd have thunk?


----------



## whitehall (Apr 23, 2019)

We know from the recent scandal that universities have no qualms about cheating as long as the money keeps coming in. It follows that university graduates who are fortunate enough to work in fields with lavish federal grants will fudge data to keep the federal grants coming in. As long as they have the liberal news media covering their crooked asses everybody gets rich on the taxpayers and nobody has to give back the money when they are proven wrong.


----------



## cnm (Apr 23, 2019)

The retard theory of science.


----------



## Indeependent (Apr 23, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > justoffal said:
> ...


Overpaid...


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Apr 24, 2019)

whitehall said:


> We know from the recent scandal that universities have no qualms about cheating as long as the money keeps coming in. It follows that university graduates who are fortunate enough to work in fields with lavish federal grants will fudge data to keep the federal grants coming in. As long as they have the liberal news media covering their crooked asses everybody gets rich on the taxpayers and nobody has to give back the money when they are proven wrong.



Our universities are infested with Marxists and have zero integrity.

Time to replace them for education purposes and convert them into an NFL farm system.

That is all they really are.


----------



## Chuz Life (Apr 24, 2019)

Thread has me curious.

What is the scientific consensus on "when and how a human being's life begins?"


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 24, 2019)

justoffal said:


> There is absolutely no proof that man produced CO2 is responsible for the ppm
> Increase....


You say i know nothi g about you. That was incorrect.

I know you are embarrassingly ignorant of climate science and say very retarded things about it, like in the quote above.

Yessir, i know this about you for a fact.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 24, 2019)

Chuz Life said:


> Thread has me curious.
> 
> What is the scientific consensus on "when and how a human being's life begins?"


There isn't one. And you have asked all the same people the same question before. So no, you are not and were not "curious". You're just taling a shit in the thread


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 24, 2019)

whitehall said:


> We know from the recent scandal that universities have no qualms about cheating as long as the money keeps coming in.


Psst...hey genius....the consensus is among the entire global scientific community, not just among the women's studies teachers at Liberal, U. So ya sound like a goddamn moron.


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 24, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > We know from the recent scandal that universities have no qualms about cheating as long as the money keeps coming in.
> ...


if its the entire global scientific community then wheres the list???

and again they use consensus because the science failed or they would have used it,,,


----------



## cnm (Apr 24, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> and again they use consensus because the science failed or they would have used it


They used science. Retards don't understand it.


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 24, 2019)

cnm said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > and again they use consensus because the science failed or they would have used it
> ...


then why did they need to come to a consensus???

just let the science speak for itself,,,,


----------



## justoffal (Apr 24, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> justoffal said:
> 
> 
> > There is absolutely no proof that man produced CO2 is responsible for the ppm
> ...



You are an idiot....
And so are 90 percent of the climate worshippers who choose mantra over
Real scientific acumen.

So a bunch of climatologists have figured out that co2 concentrations are a function of total heat. Got some news for you chump that doesn't mean squat.

No branch of science exists as an island.

Geologists have also determined that Earth's main climate drivers are Solar and Volcanic.

Astronomers have also determined that
The sun is Gradually getting warmer.

Oceanographers have determined the the temperature of the ocean water determines
Total global ppm counts in the atmosphere.

So far snobs in climatology are the only ones who think their contribution is all powerful. Of course there are hundreds of legitimate
Scientists who disagree but they don't get the grants or the news coverage.

In any case that community has painted itself into a corner long ago by citing 400
Ppm as the point of no return.  We hit that 3 years ago. So now what doofus?

Jo


----------



## justoffal (Apr 24, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



These idiots don't realize that consensus in the scientific world is a synonym for " cherry picked "....

Jo


----------



## cnm (Apr 24, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> then why did they need to come to a consensus???
> 
> just let the science speak for itself,,,,


Ffs. The scientific community agrees the science has spoken for itself, that's why there is a consensus in the scientific community. It's hardly their fault you don't understand the science. Or the meaning of consensus.


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 24, 2019)

cnm said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > then why did they need to come to a consensus???
> ...


are you saying they dont understand what they did???


OH WAIT,,,the consensus is just that they did something but have no idea what it is,,,
OK got it


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 25, 2019)

Progressives never will get it. They continually respond with scientific arguments in these type threads!! Lol....talk about doing it wrong!

The public has obviously noticed all the Oooooops moments over the past 20 years and spend 8 months out of the year sporting nut sack warmers and parka's. They havent been impressed at all with the bomb throwing.

In the real world, the science isnt mattering because nobody is caring about climate change....volumes of evidence to support it too!!If people cared about the science, we'd be seeing tons of climate change action. Instead, we dont see dick s0ns!!


----------



## justoffal (Apr 25, 2019)

cnm said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > then why did they need to come to a consensus???
> ...



That's not True....at all.

Consensus means that a special interest group ran around to all the consenting opinions and put them on a  " Cherry pick " list while ignoring and blacking out the dissenters. That is all it means.

Jo


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 25, 2019)

justoffal said:


> Geologists have also determined that Earth's main climate drivers are Solar and Volcanic.


Every major geological society on the planet endorses the scientific consensus. So, are they all ignorant of their own life's work, or all just lying? It's gotta be one or the other, so pick which retarded stance you are taking. Either way...ya look like an idiot.

You know less than nothing about any of this and should shut up immediately. You have no education or experience in any of these fields, and your opinion is worth less than nothing. Start producing some science to back up your superstitious vomiting, or STFU.


----------



## progressive hunter (Apr 25, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> justoffal said:
> 
> 
> > Geologists have also determined that Earth's main climate drivers are Solar and Volcanic.
> ...


so who declared them the experts???
they did,,,

anyone that says they are the experts should always be questioned,,,

and in this case its clear they are just makin shit up,,,


----------



## justoffal (Apr 25, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> justoffal said:
> 
> 
> > Geologists have also determined that Earth's main climate drivers are Solar and Volcanic.
> ...



First of all...
Fuck you....I definitely know more about this than you do.

1.) The scientific consensus is a myth.
It does not exist. Consensus is a rough synonym for *OFFICIAL BULLSHIT*.
2.) Climate scientists who have isolated themselves into a polarized group of
AGW believers are just one group of many.
3.) Major Geological societies? What the fuck are those? 

Now then answer my question:

Since AGW isolationists have repeatedly claimed that 400 ppm is the point of no return and we have teacher that several years ago with nothing but increase on the horizon.

Now what Doofus?

( BTW your getting your ass kicked here)

Jo


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 25, 2019)

Debates on the science of climate change are akin to group navel contemplation sessions in 2019. The real question becomes, who is winning the debate outside of community message boards. Nothing else matters.

Progressives like to take bows in front of this banner of *THE SCIENCE IS DECIDED BY A CONSENSUS*! But so what? Does it transcend into any area of the world outside the science.....having any impact in the real world? Words don't mean dick..........but in terms of effecting behavior?

The answer is.............its not! 

People say they are concerned about climate change........but they are concerned about many, many things in life. Are they concerned enough to move to any kind of action?


Well we all know the answer to that s0ns!!


----------



## mamooth (Apr 25, 2019)

justoffal said:


> No scientist worth his salt ever calls anything settled.



Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, ....

Einstein here thinks the round earth theory isn't settled. What a maroon.



> Even the so called quick temp rise of the industrial age is just a guess based on best available data....with absolutely no legitimate conclusion that we know all of the potential sources either of heat or CO2.



All the actual data says you just made up a load of horseshit. Faked it, you did. Tried to push a big fraud on us. You're forced to fake everything, because all the actual evidence always contradicts your cult idiocy.



> In addition to that they always neglect the fact that the sun is gradually putting out more local BTUs with each passing orbit.



Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, ... where do you get this nonsense? The sun has been cooling since around 1970.



> Whatever effect we are having on the climate is apparently about to be overruled by a much larger driver.



Your talent for being totally wrong every time is useful in one respect. If you say something, it's generally safe to assume the exact opposite is true.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Apr 25, 2019)

justoffal said:


> I definitely know more about this than you do.


Heh, I doubt it. You just said somethi g ass backwards wrong earlier that anyone with even a basic undertandingof this topic would know is retarded.

Furthermore, the truth of climate theories doesn't rely on what i know about them. It relies on the evidence. And, while an uneducated slob like you has an opinion worth less than nothing about them, the people who have dedicated their lives to these scientific fields know much more than you. Please, go debate them, so we can all laugh at you.

You know less than nothing about this topic. You have no education or experience in any of these fields, and you say retarded, wrong things about the science that would get you laughed out of a 10th grade science classroom. 

But,most importantly -- pay attention -- you have no evidence and are not producing any. 

So -- pay attention again -- the consensus and accpeted theories will not be upended by the embarrassing, incessant whining of deniers like you. Not ever. So stop wasting your time.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Apr 26, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> then why did they need to come to a consensus???
> just let the science speak for itself,,,,


the consensus is needed to insure that the science comes to the right conclusions.


----------



## deanrd (Apr 26, 2019)

Another thread of Republicans bashing scientists. 

 Well, we know what Republicans think of science. 






Section 4: Scientists, Politics and Religion


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Apr 26, 2019)

deanrd said:


> Another thread of Republicans bashing scientists.
> 
> Well, we know what Republicans think of science.
> 
> ...


1. I am not a Republican
2. You presume that people are not:
    a) discriminating against Republicans for belief in politically incorrect things like Intelligent design and Creationism, which are philosophical sets of beliefs and not science and have n oi implication about ones scientific values.
    b) saying they are not Republican because they dont want to catch flak from their peers.
3. You are an idiot.


----------



## Zorro! (Jun 13, 2019)

cnm said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Came across this on FB
> ...



*Studies have found most low-lying Pacific islands either remained stable or increased in size over the decades, including Tuvalu.*
*A 2018 study found that Tuvalu’s total land area grew nearly 3 percent from 1971 to 2014. Satellite and aerial photos showed eight of Tuvalu’s nine atolls and three-quarters of its reef islands increased in size over the last four decades.

Study lead author Paul Kench told AFP, “the dominant mode of change over that time on Tuvalu has been expansion, not erosion.” Kench made similar findings in a 2010 study.

Another 2018 study found that nearly 90 percent of low-lying islands in the Pacific and Indian oceans either remained stable or increased in size over the decades.*


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 21, 2019)

Zorro! said:


> *Study lead author Paul Kench told AFP, “the dominant mode of change over that time on Tuvalu has been expansion, not erosion.” Kench made similar findings in a 2010 study.
> Another 2018 study found that nearly 90 percent of low-lying islands in the Pacific and Indian oceans either remained stable or increased in size over the decades.*



But what if the islands flip upside down?

​


----------



## cnm (Jun 21, 2019)

Zorro! said:


> A 2018 study found that Tuvalu’s total land area grew nearly 3 percent from 1971 to 2014. Satellite and aerial photos showed eight of Tuvalu’s nine atolls and three-quarters of its reef islands increased in size over the last four decades.


What's your point, that there will be more of Tuvalu to be wiped from the face of the earth as the local sea level rises?

_*Global warming* (recent climate change) is dangerous in *Tuvalu* since the average height of the islands is less than 2 metres (6.6 ft) above sea level, with the highest point of Niulakita being about 4.6 metres (15 ft) above sea level. Tuvalu islands have increased in size between 1971 and 2014, during a period of global warming.[1] Over 4 decades, there had been a net increase in land area in Tuvalu of 73.5 ha (2.9%), although the changes are not uniform, with 74% increasing and 27% decreasing in size. The sea level at the Funafuti tide gauge has risen at 3.9 mm per year, which is approximately twice the global average.[2]_
Climate change in Tuvalu - Wikipedia


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 21, 2019)

We've been hearing about this " consensus" for many years now. Progressives take bows in front of this banner every day. Good for them!

But the fact of the matter is, the science is not mattering in the real world. The "science" has had no impact on the makers of public policy with regards to climate change.....so it's actually the science embraced by climate sceptics that is embraced. And how hysterical is that?

Congress could not possibly be any less interested in climate chage action....which means the science isnt mattering s0ns!


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 21, 2019)

JimBowie1958 said:


> I got this from a Delingpole article, and I  found this list to be pretty interesting.
> 
> 
> *We would be living through a new Ice Age by the year 2000.*
> ...




Yeah....but this time...this time, they have it all nailed down......so you need to give them all the tax money they want, you need to return to the Middle Age way of life, and you need to give absolute power to the people in the government....because this time they know what they are talking about....


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 21, 2019)

cnm said:


> Zorro! said:
> 
> 
> > A 2018 study found that Tuvalu’s total land area grew nearly 3 percent from 1971 to 2014. Satellite and aerial photos showed eight of Tuvalu’s nine atolls and three-quarters of its reef islands increased in size over the last four decades.
> ...




Tuvalu....really?   You twit...

STUDY: These Islands 'Sinking' From Global Warming Are Actually Growing In Size

A new study produced by researchers at the University of Auckland concludes that forecasts about the impact of climate change on some low-lying islands have failed to take into account key factors and thus have overstated the danger posed to inhabitants. The most "counterintuitive" finding in the study: the Pacific island nation of Tuvalu — the poster child of "sinking" island fears — is not only _not _shrinking, it's actually _growing_ in size.

The study, highlighted by Phys.org, "examined changes in the geography of Tuvalu's nine atolls and 101 reef islands between 1971 and 2014, using aerial photographs and satellite imagery." Over that period, "eight of the atolls and almost three-quarters of the islands grew."

*In total, rather than shrinking in land mass, Tuvalu's total land area increased by 2.9%. This increase is particularly "counterintuitive" because the area in which Tuvalu is located is supposed to have suffered a rise in sea levels that are "twice the global average."*


----------



## Flopper (Jun 21, 2019)

JimBowie1958 said:


> I got this from a Delingpole article, and I  found this list to be pretty interesting.
> 
> 
> *We would be living through a new Ice Age by the year 2000.*
> ...


Climate does not change rapidly.  It is a rather slow process, that takes decades.  That's why you have to see evidence in order get real change, global temperature changes, change in ocean temperatures, change in sea ice, and change in sea level.  Most of these are leading indicators of what will follow, increases in intensity of weather patterns and persist changes in regional weather patterns, followed by plant and animal migration, crop failures, droughts, flooding, etc.  If global warming predictions are correct, it will be painfully obvious.  However, assuming that anything can or will be done is problematic.  People will always create scenarios in which nothing should be done or can be done; it's god's will, it's a natural phenomenon so nothing can be done, or it's happen before and it will correct itself.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 21, 2019)

Flopper said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > I got this from a Delingpole article, and I  found this list to be pretty interesting.
> ...



Sometimes it's better to do nothing as in this case what the AGW cult wants is social justice disguised as a crisis, we just don't have the data.


.


----------



## Flopper (Jun 21, 2019)

bear513 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


If scientist are all wrong about global warming, you're correct about doing nothing.  If scientist are right about global warming and the predicted effect in 50 to 100 years, it won't be your problem because you probably won't be around.  So it's perfectly understandable why you and hundreds of millions of others would take your position.

Frankly, I don't see much being done during either my lifetime or yours. Liberals will create programs to combat climate change and conservatives will repeal them.  The simple fact is most people don't give a damn what happens to this place after their gone.


----------



## Ernie S. (Jun 22, 2019)

JoeMoma said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Most of those were not scientific consensus. The cooling predictions were by deniers.
> ...


I often ask, "precisely, what is the ideal temperature for the earth?" The earth has been considerably hotter and yes, New York City was under water, BUT it has also been much cooler and NYC was under ice.Which would you prefer? Should we take an average?. What if that average is 2 degrees warmer than the present? or should we decide that June 4th 1968 or today, or any random date is the ideal? How utterly presumptuous of us?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 22, 2019)

Flopper said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Well it would help if AGW was falsifiable and thus actual science, ya know?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 22, 2019)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...




Yeah and more data then just 30 years or less in some places on the globe..I always feel embarrassed for them, it's like who you trying to fool?


----------



## EvilCat Breath (Jun 22, 2019)

My favorite scientific consensus is the one that will surely end all life on earth.

The Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894.
.The Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894


----------



## james bond (Jun 22, 2019)

JimBowie1958 said:


> We would run out of oil.



It's cheap.  I suppose there is only so much oil in the ground, but that's not the main concern.  The main concern is air pollution, not AGW.


----------



## RealDave (Jun 22, 2019)

It is so sad that so many people posting here are this stupid.

It is fact that higher levels of CO2 heightenes the greenhouse effect.

It is fact that this increase is coming from mam as we have a good idea of the emissions we are spewing & the fasct that no other sources can account for this increase.

It takes decades for the Earth to remove excess CO2.  We must first reduce emissions to the point where we are not adding more & then it will taje decades to lower them.

This is why we need to act now.

This is why we can;t do notrhing until the effects to become so great that we have no choice.

You put your own children's future as risk & you allow your ignorance to ignore it.

Quit beimng a bunch of Trumptards & get off your ignorant asses & do something to help future generations.


----------



## RealDave (Jun 22, 2019)

bear513 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


  Because you think that we have no information pre-satellite?

Prior yo that, we know nothing.

You are an embarrassment.


----------



## RealDave (Jun 22, 2019)

Ernie S. said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



Well, Ernie, our society is built on a certain climate.  If it changes, we would still survive but the following could change:
1)  Increasing sea levels would be many coastal communities & infrastructure would either be lost or need rebuilt.
2)  Places that now are food for growing crops may no longer grow these crops.
3)  Precipitation patterns can change.  Changing agriculture.  Some areas could become scarce of watter
4)  Increased temperatures could force buildings to have their HVAC rebuilt for the hotter temps.
5) This could mean improvements to our power grids
6)  Changing food & water supplies could bring about mass migrations
7)  These changes would bring about wars.

All because a bunch of uneducated assfuckls are too stupid to understand science.

Brilliant plan.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 22, 2019)

RealDave said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...




?

What does satellites have to do with world land based temperature recording stations...


Like I said I feel sorry for you who are you trying to fool with just less then 20 years worth of actual data in some parts of the globe.


Once again


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jun 22, 2019)

Ernie S. said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


You arent approaching it correctly. Scientists arent concerned because they hold some ideal for "exact temperature", and temperature will always vary across the globe. They are concerned because the climate is changing rapidly. They would express similar concern, were the climate colling rapidly due to human actions. 

The "ideal temperature" line of thought is a red herring invented by paid climate change liars.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jun 22, 2019)

bear513 said:


> Yeah and more data then just 30 years or less in some places on the globe


Why? By what principle? How much more data? Why isnt what we have enough to show a clear signal? The people who dedicate their lives to these fields say that it is enough. But you know better? Sure.  You are just making stuff up.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 22, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > JoeMoma said:
> ...



Actually s0n, most folks not hysterical like you about this. In fact, very few are. Your rants are embraced by a very small number if people.

Are you feeling like a dick yet? If not, you should be.

Meatheads like you have been hysterical over climate change for two decades now. Fortunately, the rest of the world worries waaaaay more about many other genuine concerns in life.

So you can scream from now until the cows come home.....but there's no evidence anybody else is caring!

Dont be such a dick and get some real responsibilities in life. This way you won't get hysterical about stupid stuff.


No One Cares About Climate Change - Social Media Engagement Study


----------



## RealDave (Jun 22, 2019)

skookerasbil said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...


 Actually, we are in the majority.

Only Trumptards are so stupid so as to ignore it.


----------



## RealDave (Jun 22, 2019)

bear513 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


  So, if we had these land stations everywhere you want & the result is the same, you would be all for fighting emissions?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 22, 2019)

RealDave said:


> It is so sad that so many people posting here are this stupid.
> 
> It is fact that higher levels of CO2 heightenes the greenhouse effect.
> 
> ...



*We must first reduce emissions to the point where we are not adding more*

Why?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 22, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > JoeMoma said:
> ...



*3) Precipitation patterns can change. Changing agriculture. Some areas could become scarce of watter*

How many trillions would we have to spend on windmills to ensure that precipitation patterns never ever change? How will we know when we've succeeded?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jun 22, 2019)

Troll interrogation....


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 22, 2019)

RealDave said:


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



A majority of banner gazers!

If the consensus science is correct, why zero climate change action?

It's because the public is unimpressed. Highly unimpressed.

Nobody is calling their representative demanding climate change action.....only those who tend to the hysterical are all ocd about 3mm sea rise. I mean, c'mon now.....the perpetually miserable who need more to do in life sit home and angst about bleaching coral.....


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 22, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



Indeed.....

But when did costs ever matter to a progressive?


----------



## mamooth (Jun 22, 2019)

Ernie S. said:


> Well it would help if AGW was falsifiable and thus actual science, ya know?



So what cult lunatic told you AGW science wasn't falsifiable, and why did you believe such a dumb claim? There are many ways in which AGW science could be falsified with realistic hard data, because it's real science. I've listed them before. I can list some again. For example, any of these would falsify AGW theory.

A lack of rising temperatures over the long term
A lack of rising sea levels
A lack of stratospheric cooling
A lack of increase in backradiation
A lack of increase in specific humidity
Outgoing long wave radiation not decreasing in the GHG bands
A lack of an atmospheric CO2 increase
Showing CO2 doesn't really absorb IR
Showing a source for the added heat that wasn't known before
Showing climate has changed the same way in the past without human influence

Needless to say, nothing like any of that has been measured or demonstrated, so AGW theory remains unfalsified science in good standing. It's been attacked from all sides, has weathered those attacks, and is stronger for it.

In contrast, most of what deniers put forth is just conspiracy raving. Since that can't be falsified, it's not science. When deniers do put forth specific claims, such as their non-stop claims for the past 40 years about the new ice age RealSoonNow, those claims end up being falsified.

If any denier disagrees, they should describe their theory about what is driving the current climate, and then tell us what realistic hard data would disprove their theory. If they can't, then they're not using science. Note that the "It's natural!" theory has been disproved by hard data, so that would not be a good theory to present.


----------



## james bond (Jun 22, 2019)

RealDave said:


> It is so sad that so many people posting here are this stupid.



Reading your bullet points, you are talking only about yourself.



RealDave said:


> It is fact that higher levels of CO2 heightenes the greenhouse effect.



No evidence for that.  You are lying.



RealDave said:


> It is fact that this increase is coming from mam as we have a good idea of the emissions we are spewing & the fasct that no other sources can account for this increase.
> 
> It takes decades for the Earth to remove excess CO2. We must first reduce emissions to the point where we are not adding more & then it will taje decades to lower them.
> 
> ...



The rest aren't facts, but assertions.  You are one dumb mother, fake dave.  You can't spell worth beans either.


----------



## Rustic (Jun 22, 2019)

JimBowie1958 said:


> I got this from a Delingpole article, and I  found this list to be pretty interesting.
> 
> 
> *We would be living through a new Ice Age by the year 2000.*
> ...


Yep, There is climate change, it’s just not man-made.... fact

Lol


----------



## Rustic (Jun 22, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> justoffal said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


Lol
Keep your climate change Theories to yourselves, it’s no one else’s business. So shut the fuck up


----------



## RealDave (Jun 22, 2019)

james bond said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > It is so sad that so many people posting here are this stupid.
> ...


  higher levels CO2  =>  Heightened greenhouse effect  =>  higher temperatures

Proven science.


----------



## RealDave (Jun 22, 2019)

skookerasbil said:


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


  Because the deficits shrink under Democrats & skyrocket under Republicans?


----------



## RealDave (Jun 22, 2019)

skookerasbil said:


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


  So you don;t think there is anything being done to fight AGW?  Are ypu blind or just stupid.

The Paris Accord for one.

Several states have told Trump to fuck off & doing their own actions.

Thinking people have taken actions.

Dumbass people like you, no so much.


----------



## Rustic (Jun 22, 2019)

RealDave said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



...and nothing to do with man
Lol


----------



## Rustic (Jun 22, 2019)

RealDave said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Lol
You obviously don’t understand economics


----------



## RealDave (Jun 22, 2019)

JimBowie1958 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > then why did they need to come to a consensus???
> ...


 The consensus says AGW is real.


----------



## progressive hunter (Jun 22, 2019)

RealDave said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...





no it isnt,,,
theyve only come to a consensus because the science failed,,,


----------



## Rustic (Jun 22, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > JoeMoma said:
> ...


Lol
Go along with your plan to save the world, it does not require our participation


----------



## RealDave (Jun 22, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



PROVEN SCIENCE

higher levels of CO2 increases the greenhouse effect.

You can stomp your feet, scream & pout all you want.  It is science.


----------



## RealDave (Jun 22, 2019)

Rustic said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...


  It actually does.  But hety, those who refuse will be paying higher prices in order to use products that emit too much CO2.


----------



## progressive hunter (Jun 22, 2019)

RealDave said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...




how do you know the earth doesnt want a higher number???

did you ask it???


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 22, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


*But hety, those who refuse will be paying higher prices in order to use products that emit too much CO2. *

Carbon taxes!!!!

Excellent idea. The Dem platform in 2020 needs to be higher income taxes, carbon taxes and open borders.

Git 'er done!!


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Jun 22, 2019)

deanrd said:


> Another thread of Republicans bashing scientists.
> 
> Well, we know what Republicans think of science.
> 
> ...



/——-/ Out of 500,00 of scientists in the US, they surveyed 2,533. Fake poll. 
Results for the scientist survey are based on 2,533 online interviews conducted from May 1 to June 14, 2009 with members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), under the direction of Princeton Survey Research Associates International. A sample of 9,998 members was drawn from the AAAS membership list excluding those who were not based in the United States or whose membership type identified them as primary or secondary-level educators.
My source: How many scientists are there in the US


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## RealDave (Jun 22, 2019)

Cellblock2429 said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> > Another thread of Republicans bashing scientists.
> ...


  You counting Dentists & Doctors & Chemists?  Don't you think it should be climtologists?


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 22, 2019)

RealDave said:


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



But if my side is such a vast minority with an irrelevant opinion, why are you so flipping angry?

I'll tell you why.....because your side is l0siNg. In epiC fashion btw.

And the Paris Accord is dead you dummy...........all of those climate accords are symbolic jokes only! They never come within a billion miles of the stated objectives.....duh.

You progressives are always pissed because you're all so certain you have the only answers......*BUT NOBODY IS GIVING A SHIT!!!*

**


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 22, 2019)

Even the st00pidest of the st00pid realize that spending bizzilions of $ to fight climate change while China opens new coal plants every month is beyond retarded.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 22, 2019)

RealDave said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



But it only matters how many people care.

Otherwise, it's a big old billboard in the middle of the countryside that folks can honk at as the drive on by.

If the science doesnt transcend beyond it's own field, it stands like a statue in a playground. People can admire it if they want.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 22, 2019)

EIA Report Says Coal Still King on State-by-State Basis


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 22, 2019)

Progressives take bows all day about "the science"!!

We're all real proud of them.

But to conservatives, THIS is cause for serious bowing shit!!>>>

https://renewablesnow.com/news/rene...-fuels-to-rule-till-2040-eia-projects-583589/


----------



## RealDave (Jun 22, 2019)

skookerasbil said:


> EIA Report Says Coal Still King on State-by-State Basis


 Your article said only 18 states relied more on coal.


----------



## RealDave (Jun 22, 2019)

skookerasbil said:


> Even the st00pidest of the st00pid realize that spending bizzilions of $ to fight climate change while China opens new coal plants every month is beyond retarded.


 China still needs to grow their electric grid.  The coal plants are modern, cleaner plants.  They are working toreduce emsions aside from their needed growth.

Are you saying no developing countries can expand their grid?


----------



## RealDave (Jun 22, 2019)

Rustic said:


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


  People call Trump their friend.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 22, 2019)

Idealistic philosophy is ghey

Coal, particularly worldwide, will *DOMINATE* for many, many decades according to Obama's and Trumps recent EIA Reports!

Think I'll take their research over Dave's opinion


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 22, 2019)

Nobody wants renewables....thats why solar power still provides well under 2% of our electricity......

https://renewablesnow.com/news/rene...-fuels-to-rule-till-2040-eia-projects-583589/

@www.whosnotwinning.com


----------



## RealDave (Jun 22, 2019)

skookerasbil said:


> Nobody wants renewables....thats why solar power still provides well under 2% of our electricity......
> 
> https://renewablesnow.com/news/rene...-fuels-to-rule-till-2040-eia-projects-583589/
> 
> @www.whosnotwinning.com


You said coal dominated in every state.  That was not true.


----------



## RealDave (Jun 22, 2019)

skookerasbil said:


> Idealistic philosophy is ghey
> 
> Coal, particularly worldwide, will *DOMINATE* for many, many decades according to Obama's and Trumps recent EIA Reports!
> 
> Think I'll take their research over Dave's opinion


The EIA looked ahead to 2050.  Coal falls further behind natural gas & renewables.


----------



## Rustic (Jun 22, 2019)

RealDave said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Idealistic philosophy is ghey
> ...


Lol
Coal is vital to the northern plains, without fossil fuels The northern plains would be a waste land... fact


----------



## Flopper (Jun 22, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > JoeMoma said:
> ...


Of course humans will survive even if nothing is ever done.  As world  population decreases, so will greenhouse gases.  At some point CO2 will fall enough that climate change will reverse.  Mother Nature will take care of the problem if we don't.  We don't have to do a thing.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 22, 2019)

RealDave said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Idealistic philosophy is ghey
> ...



But when one operationally defines "further", its laughable. I guess those on your side can take solace in that. I couldnt.....seeing that solar/ wind combined will still be less than 10% by mid- century. A joke.

Mental- case states like California are now seeing citizens paying 10% of their net income for energy.......renewable gheyness. Guess progressives like you think that's awesome. Wont fly in most other places.....they'll throw the fuckers out on their oysters as fast as a windmill goes down in a wind gust!


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 22, 2019)

Flopper said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



You know what....all these years of posting in here.....you are the most astute board member I've seen. So utterly fatalistic dude....pretty cool stuff seeing all the members in here such slaves to the matrix.


----------



## Flopper (Jun 22, 2019)

RealDave said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Even the st00pidest of the st00pid realize that spending bizzilions of $ to fight climate change while China opens new coal plants every month is beyond retarded.
> ...


Most of the coal powered power plants China is building are in developing countries. The size of the plants and other reason make nuclear plants impractical.  However, domestically, China is making great strides toward reducing greenhouse gases.  They now have 45 nuclear power plants in operation and have 15 under construction.  China has more solar energy capacity than any other country in the world, at a gargantuan 130 gigawatts. By 2040, they plan to increase there capacity by 300%.  China has committed to eliminating internal combustion engines by 2040.  By 2030, the sale of new petroleum powered vehicles will be illegal.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 22, 2019)

Flopper said:


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



How many new nuke plants should we build here?


----------



## Flopper (Jun 22, 2019)

skookerasbil said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


Thanks for the complement, but I'm not a board member.


----------



## Bush92 (Jun 22, 2019)

JoeMoma said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Overpopulation would result in worldwide famine.
> ...


That’s why wars are a good thing. Also famine and disease in Third World is a good thing.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 22, 2019)

Flopper said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...




Why would human population decrease? In the Jurassic era C02 was 5 times higher, plants and animals grew huge.


.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 22, 2019)

China is indeed seeing significant growth in renewables....but only dummies spike the football!

China is also building 300 new coal plants between now and 2030!! >>  China’s power industry calls for hundreds of new coal power plants by 2030

Paris Climate Treaty!!


I get that there is virtue in seeing the glass half full instead of half empty. But I mean.....c'mon now!!


----------



## Muhammed (Jun 22, 2019)

JoeMoma said:


> My Humble Opinion:  Do we have global warming?  Yes.


Is it warming or cooling? It depends.

At ~2:30 in the video, professor Bob Carter explains it in terms that even you laypersons should be able to comprehend.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 22, 2019)

bear513 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...




Then their top scientists get caught lying, as they did in the Climate gate scandal......and NASA keeps getting caught "adjusting" data...


----------



## Flopper (Jun 22, 2019)

bear513 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


A number reasons.  As world temperatures rise, there will be dramatic changes in weather patterns. Central America and Mexico and much of the southern US would become a desert, population would migrant north.  A number of Caribbean islands would be abandoned.   The US heartlands which is the source of much of the grain that feed hundreds of millions of people would move north toward Canada.  Much of China and India's agriculture would disappear as Siberia becomes the major source of food for large parts of the world.  Island nations such as Japan and New Zealand would loose much it's land mass.  However, the biggest problem would be the coral reefs. Almost all of them would die creating a huge shortage of seafood.   The result would be famine and wars. 

BTW You can't compare the Jurassic period to the period of major climate we expect in the 21st century for a numbers reasons.  First, we have far less animal and plants.  Volcanic activity of earth is far less today.  The Jurassic period lasted over 50 millions. The climatic change is expected to start causing major problems on earth between 50 and 100 years from now.  It will continue until CO2 levels in the atmosphere drops.  Since man is the primary cause for the rise, it will drop when man is no longer the cause.   That will occur when there is a worldwide effort to reduce greenhouse gases or when the world's population is low enough that man's contribution to greenhouse gases is minimal.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 22, 2019)

Flopper said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Yeah but we'll all be in our boxes for scores of years by then and no matter....we cant do dick about it anyway!!

Any worldwide effort will depend on one thing only: costs.....as always. Which means renewables are out of the question.


----------



## RealDave (Jun 22, 2019)

2aguy said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


 Your "climategate" was debunked years ago.  There were no lies.

Now, you accuse NASA?  

This is the part where you people's ignorance is the problem.

Data is often adjusted.  For example a temperature station in an urban area might always read higher because of the concrete & roof tops. This would be adjusted.

The unemployment rate is seasonally ADJUSTED.

Some historical charts concerning money are adjusted for inflation.

You people are just too stupid to be alive.


----------



## RealDave (Jun 22, 2019)

skookerasbil said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


 So you have no kids?  Thank God.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 22, 2019)

Muhammed said:


> At ~2:30 in the video, professor Bob Carter explains it in terms that even you laypersons should be able to comprehend.



Then why don't you explain it in your own words, to show that you understand, and then we can discuss it.

Please proceed.

If you don't understand, and you're trying to hide that fact, just yell something like "But it's in the video!" as a way of evading.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 22, 2019)

Rustic said:


> There is climate change, man has nothing to do with it.



Can you tell us how decreasing solar output causes warming?

What's that? Your cult masters didn't inform you that solar output has been decreasing since 1970? My, my. If they lied to you about something that basic, they must have lied to you about everything.

Are you going to ask them why they misled you? Of courses you won't. Good cultists don't question sacred cult dogma. You're going to run back to them, drop to your knees, lick their boots, thank them for lying to you, and beg for more lies.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 22, 2019)

JimBowie1958 said:


> I got this from a Delingpole article, and I  found this list to be pretty interesting.
> 
> 
> *We would be living through a new Ice Age by the year 2000.*
> ...


You forgot cigarettes cause cancer


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 22, 2019)

mamooth said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > There is climate change, man has nothing to do with it.
> ...



*solar output has been decreasing since 1970?*

Sounds serious. Do you think we've added enough CO2 to avoid the next Ice Age?


----------



## mamooth (Jun 22, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Sounds serious. Do you think we've added enough CO2 to avoid the next Ice Age?



Yes, that does seem likely. Of course, that next ice age would be in 20,000 - 50,000 years.

Do you run your furnace full blast starting in June, because you know winter is eventually coming? That seems to be what you're advocating for the planet.


----------



## Rustic (Jun 22, 2019)

mamooth said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > There is climate change, man has nothing to do with it.
> ...


Lol
All of the data you’re looking at has been rigged


----------



## otto105 (Jun 22, 2019)

JimBowie1958 said:


> I got this from a Delingpole article, and I  found this list to be pretty interesting.
> 
> 
> *We would be living through a new Ice Age by the year 2000.*
> ...




None of the listed items constitute scientific consensus, but rather personal opinion.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 22, 2019)

mamooth said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Sounds serious. Do you think we've added enough CO2 to avoid the next Ice Age?
> ...



*Yes, that does seem likely.*

Excellent. An Ice Age would kill billions.

*Of course, that next ice age would be in 20,000 - 50,000 years.*

How do you know?

*Do you run your furnace full blast starting in June, because you know winter is eventually coming? *

Do you throw your blankets out in July because you forgot solar output is decreasing?


----------



## Rustic (Jun 22, 2019)

otto105 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > I got this from a Delingpole article, and I  found this list to be pretty interesting.
> ...


The existence of so called “man-made climate change”… Is opinion, certainly not fact


----------



## mamooth (Jun 22, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Excellent. An Ice Age would kill billions.



Huge logical fallacy on your part, your assumption that not preventing an ice age now means we can never prevent an ice age. A rational person would point out that we've got at least 20,000 years to act there.



> Do you throw your blankets out in July because you forgot solar output is decreasing?



What does that nonsensical statement have to do with anything?

Oh, that's right. You understand how dumb your "We need to boil the earth right now to stop an ice age in 20,000 years" argument was, so you're trying to change the subject.


----------



## otto105 (Jun 22, 2019)

skookerasbil said:


> The climate hysterical will never get that all the data in the world doesnt matter unless the public cares. The public is very aware of the data....they just dont buy the bomb thrower tales. Because they've seen them be wrong a billion times.....st00pid jerkoffs!
> 
> Congress....no matter who is holding court.....could not give two shits about the science. Because nobody is calling......doy.




The only people not responding to the data are conservatives who it as just a political issue rather than a scientific call to change.


----------



## Eric Arthur Blair (Jun 22, 2019)

otto105 said:


> The only people not responding to the data are conservatives who it as just a political issue rather than a scientific call to change.


It's so important that cap and trade bodies will sell permits to pollute. That's how important cap and trade is.


----------



## Muhammed (Jun 22, 2019)

mamooth said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > At ~2:30 in the video, professor Bob Carter explains it in terms that even you laypersons should be able to comprehend.
> ...


Specifically, what part of the presentation did you fail to comprehend?

Perhaps I can help you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 22, 2019)

mamooth said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Excellent. An Ice Age would kill billions.
> ...



*Huge logical fallacy on your part,*

Less solar output takes 20,000 years to cause an Ice Age? Link?

*A rational person would point out that we've got at least 20,000 years to act there.*​
I'll await your proof that we have 20,000 years. At least.
​*What does that nonsensical statement have to do with anything?*​
My statement was more nonsensical than your furnace idiocy?
​*We need to boil the earth right now to stop an ice age*​
Boil? Are you one of the jokers that believes we're going to warm 6C by 2100? More?​


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 22, 2019)

otto105 said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > The climate hysterical will never get that all the data in the world doesnt matter unless the public cares. The public is very aware of the data....they just dont buy the bomb thrower tales. Because they've seen them be wrong a billion times.....st00pid jerkoffs!
> ...



How many new nuke plants should we build?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 22, 2019)

RealDave said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...




1,000s of kids are dying every month in Africa today because of no cheap fossil fuels, why don't you care about them?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 22, 2019)

*Cleaning and sanitizing for your protection.. Might re-open shortly... *


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 22, 2019)

*Deleted 32 posts. 2 warnings issued..  Kind of serious spamming goin on here. Don't engage trolls in melt-down mode.. Makes it harder to clean up... *


----------



## RealDave (Jun 23, 2019)

JimBowie1958 said:


> I got this from a Delingpole article, and I  found this list to be pretty interesting.
> 
> 
> *We would be living through a new Ice Age by the year 2000.*
> ...


 First of all, Earth Day was not about CO2 emissions.  It was about smog & particulates and that air pollution along with poilution in our waters.  Those predctions did not come true because action was taken & pollution greatly reduced.

Ozone predictions did not come true because action wass taken.  Things were banned.

Acid rain predictions did not come trie because we adaopted a cap & trade on SO2 remissions & stopped it.

This "global cooling" bullshit in the 70's was a report by one scientisty whose work was debunked by his peers.

The Arctic Ice cap is shrinking.

Seas are rising.

The oil supply is based on recoverable oil.  As the price of oil goes up, more oil is considered recoverable.  In 1909, our drilling methods would have had very little oiul recoverable.  That said, there is a finite supply of oil, to think otherwise is stupid.

It is really stupid to have a fit about a prediction coming true, if that prediction was a warning & steps taken to address it.

We have taken some steps on reducing our greenhouse gas emissions.  To go back to take a prediction made before this effort & think that prediction was wrong is just plain stupid.

Its like you weighing 300 pounds in 1990 & I tell, you that you could die young and then you lose 100 pounds & tell me 20 years later that my prediction was wrong because you are still alive.

You people are just ignorant & uneducated & have no logic.  All you do is sit around listening to people paid to dupe you & you all dupe so well.


----------



## RealDave (Jun 23, 2019)

JimBowie1958 said:


> justoffal said:
> 
> 
> > Eric Arthur Blair said:
> ...


  So we should ignore those going extinct because of the actions of man?

Yes I killed that dog but its OK because dogs can die of things like disease , car encounters & old age,

This is your argument?


----------



## RealDave (Jun 23, 2019)

justoffal said:


> Eric Arthur Blair said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


  "Who cares about some stupid canary", said the coal miner.


----------



## justoffal (Jun 23, 2019)

RealDave said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > justoffal said:
> ...



Trying to interfere with the process and stop a given species from going where it belongs which is often into Extinction is just completely foolish. Hell we'll have a hard enough time keeping the human species from eachxtinction without worrying about several hundred other species that are less important frankly. As for bears there are at least a hundred species of those...now the polar bears are beginning to mix with the northern grizzlies to produce a far more flexible creature with a broader range of prey and of geography and is better suited than either of its predecessors to survive future changes taking place in their ecosystem.

Jo


----------



## RealDave (Jun 23, 2019)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Most of those were not scientific consensus. The cooling predictions were by deniers.
> ...



Acid Rain was dealt with.   Under George HW Bush, a cap & trade systemn wad put in place to rec=duce the types of emissions that used it.

That cap  trade system remains in effect today.

Nothing like outing yet another stupid Trumptard,


----------



## RealDave (Jun 23, 2019)

justoffal said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...




In this case, man is creating the conditions that will lead to this extinction.

Reducing emissions to lower the effects of AGW is not foolish.

WE created it, we can fix it.

Quit acting like it just nature.


----------



## Nia88 (Jun 23, 2019)

Let's say for the sake of argument that climate change is bullshit.

Will it hurt you to use paper instead of plastic bags? Or use reusable straws instead of plastic ones. Or to use energy saving light bulbs that last longer than the traditional ones. Or using less gas that is better for your lungs anyway. Or fishing alternative energy sources other than burning up fossil fuels.


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Jun 23, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...


/——-/ Enough to provide cheap reliable energy.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 23, 2019)

You read these posts from the climate- consumed. How does one even navigate life thinking all the time that a house is about to drop out of the sky on your head?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 23, 2019)

justoffal said:


> Trying to interfere with the process and stop a given species from going where it belongs which is often into Extinction is just completely foolish. Hell we'll have a hard enough time keeping the human species from eachxtinction without worrying about several hundred other species that are less important frankly. As for bears there are at least a hundred species of those...now the polar bears are beginning to mix with the northern grizzlies to produce a far more flexible creature with a broader range of prey and of geography and is better suited than either of its predecessors to survive future changes taking place in their ecosystem.
> 
> Jo



Liberals seem to want to halt evolution and exterminate mankind instead; but then who would keep the lid on Evolution if we go extinct?

roflmao


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 23, 2019)

Nia88 said:


> Will it hurt you to use paper instead of plastic bags?



And encourage the destruction of vast forests? How do we breath?



Nia88 said:


> Or use reusable straws instead of plastic ones.



A straw is a straw; I don't care, just give me a straw.



Nia88 said:


> Or to use energy saving light bulbs that last longer than the traditional ones.



Already do that due to the influence of the magical Free Market. I save money.

….and my wife is a tree hugger.



Nia88 said:


> Or using less gas that is better for your lungs anyway.



Well, I do need to cut back on the beans.



Nia88 said:


> Or fishing alternative energy sources other than burning up fossil fuels.



Using fish for fuel?

Now that is interesting....


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 23, 2019)

It's always the climate threads that identify the level of mental case stuff we are dealing with here. But they only serve to cloud the water some because politically, the bomb throwers are a fringe entity.....and thank God for that! None of the pompous banter has led to action. And what topic has drawn more guttural laughs than the Green New Deal in 2019?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 23, 2019)

RealDave said:


> justoffal said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



*In this case, man is creating the conditions that will lead to this extinction.*

It's been much warmer in the last million years, why didn't the polar bears go extinct then?

*Reducing emissions to lower the effects of AGW is not foolish.*​
How many new nuke plants should we build?​


----------



## Ernie S. (Jun 23, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > JoeMoma said:
> ...


I understand science just fine. Apparently, you didn't understand my question.
Of course a large change in average temperature would disrupt our society. Maybe we couldn't grow corn is Iowa, but perhaps we could in Alaska. Maybe Manhattan would be under water, but would that necessarily be a bad thing for humanity?
Maybe the earth warms up even more and humanity dies off entirely. Other than the fact that we think humanity should thrive, maybe, in the grand scheme of things, dinosaurs are supposed to roam the earth.


----------



## justoffal (Jun 23, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > justoffal said:
> ...



Cause and effect is always present. Is it anthropogenic? Perhaps.... So is every breath you exhale.

Jo


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jun 23, 2019)

It mught be a good time to reiterate something:

When past scientific consensus has changed, it changed due to more evidence, itself brought to light by science.

No, never has scientific consensus been formed or overturned based on a bunch of cackling, bad political actors.


----------



## RealDave (Jun 23, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > justoffal said:
> ...




How long ago????  In the past, these changes took centuries & allowed animals to adapt. 

If we don't want to build plants that could ill thousands when a earthquake hits and creates waste that taken ten thousand years to become safe, we don't want green energy,.  I get it.  We have 15 fukushima style nuclear plants along a major fault line in the central US.


----------



## RealDave (Jun 23, 2019)

justoffal said:


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


 Where is this extra CO2 coming from?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jun 23, 2019)

"Perhaps.... So it's every breath you exhale."

This is dedinitely one of the most idiotic denier talking points. What kind of liar can say this with a straight face, and think he is adding insight or revelation to the discussion?  What kind of fool would imply that scientists don't consider this? Embarrassing.


----------



## RealDave (Jun 23, 2019)

Ernie S. said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...


 So you agree man is a factor & that these changes could be dramatic but you don't give a rat;s ass nor want to do anything to prevent it.

You assume that we just grow crops further north assuming the same soil conditions & precip amounts.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 23, 2019)

RealDave said:


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



*In the past, these changes took centuries & allowed animals to adapt. *

I agree, they didn't go extinct when the climate was much, much warmer.

*If we don't want to build plants that could ill thousands when a earthquake hits *

Yeah, let's not build on fault lines.

*We have 15 fukushima style nuclear plants along a major fault line in the central US*

We have plants that are going to lose power to the coolant pumps and then get their generators flooded?
You have a list?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jun 23, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yeah, let's not build on fault lines.


Earthquakes dont just affect areas right on fault lines, and we discover new fault lines every day. Todderino, you're not a real deep thinker, are ya?.


----------



## Votto (Jun 23, 2019)

JimBowie1958 said:


> I got this from a Delingpole article, and I  found this list to be pretty interesting.
> 
> 
> *We would be living through a new Ice Age by the year 2000.*
> ...



At the dawn of the Progressive era, it was a commonly held scientific belief that blacks were inferior.

Darwin claimed blacks and Aborigines, would be eliminated and disappear in the struggle for survival because they were inferior. in his book _The Descent of Man. While this view was prevalent among all Englishmen of his day, his stance gave credence to the Nazi movement to claim that the Aryan race was superior._


----------



## progressive hunter (Jun 23, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, let's not build on fault lines.
> ...




everyday my ass,,,

what fault lines have been discovered this week???
thats seven so name one,,,


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jun 23, 2019)

Votto said:


> At the dawn of the Progressive era, it was a commonly held scientific belief that blacks were inferior.


And before, so it seems you dont have much of a point about progressivism. But, thanks to progressivism and scientific enlightenment, that bigotry has been tamped down.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 23, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, let's not build on fault lines.
> ...



*Earthquakes dont just affect areas right on fault lines, *

How many nuclear disasters have we had because of earthquakes in the US?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 23, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



He's on a roll...….


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jun 23, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


A stupid question, since we are talking about more time going forward than since the first plant was built, and many more plants. It's literally the topic of discussion, ya troll.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 23, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



So that would be zero. Thanks!

You don't think Fukushima was destroyed by the earthquake, do you?


----------



## justoffal (Jun 23, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> It mught be a good time to reiterate something:
> 
> When past scientific consensus has changed, it changed due to more evidence, itself broight to light by science.
> 
> No, never has scientific consensus been formed or overturned based on a bunch of cackling, bad political actors.





Toddsterpatriot said:


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



Unfortunately there are numerous catastrophic events throughout Earth's history that have caused INSTANT change to global parameters.  Meteor crater looks to be about 50,000 years old.... Not very long ago.

It's most likely caused a period of up to ten years of drastic temperature drops and total Crop failure. It's just one of dozens.

Jo


----------



## Votto (Jun 23, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> > At the dawn of the Progressive era, it was a commonly held scientific belief that blacks were inferior.
> ...









Segregation anyone?

Progressives are now supporting reverse segregation, to keep out whitey

Do Colleges Actually Welcome Segregation on Campus?


----------



## justoffal (Jun 23, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> "Perhaps.... So it's every breath you exhale."
> 
> This is dedinitely one of the most idiotic denier talking points. What kind of liar can say this with a straight face, and think he is adding insight or revelation to the discussion?  What kind of fool would imply that scientists don't consider this? Embarrassing.



Climatologists are indeed foolish people despite their degrees. They seriously underestimated volcanoes.... To name only one.

Jo


----------



## Votto (Jun 23, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



The man who came up with the Big Bang theory was a priest.

Einstien and company just laughed at him.  Why?  Cuz he was a priest and amateur scientist, but mostly because he was a priest.

Also, a woman came up with the theory that stars are mostly hydrogen.  She was then laughed at.  Why?  Cuz she was a stupid woman.  She was brow beat so bad she recanted, much like how people who claimed that the earth was not the center of the universe recanted to save their lives back in the day.

So as we can see, we all have bias, and politics ruins everything.

But now we have a Left wing Pope spending all his time talking about the evils of building walls.  Meanwhile, the official church doctrine on abortion is that it is mass genocide, yet the Catholic church is as quiet about it as they were during the Holocaust.

Why?  You guessed it, politics.


----------



## otto105 (Jun 23, 2019)

skookerasbil said:


> You read these posts from the climate- consumed. How does one even navigate life thinking all the time that a house is about to drop out of the sky on your head?




They’re houses in the sky?


----------



## justoffal (Jun 23, 2019)

RealDave said:


> justoffal said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



There's no extra co2....only stored and released.


Jo


----------



## progressive hunter (Jun 23, 2019)

Votto said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


and thats relevant to fault lines why???


----------



## Votto (Jun 23, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



The world in which scientists operate is extremely political, just like everywhere else.

That means the truth about things can and have been hidden or manufactured, all do to being PC.

In fact, Einstein had to change his formula for relativity in order to make the PC view of the nature of the universe as static and eternal work mathematically.

He later said it was his biggest blunder.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jun 23, 2019)

RealDave said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


No, it’s still around but politically passé.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jun 23, 2019)

JimBowie1958 said:


> I got this from a Delingpole article, and I  found this list to be pretty interesting.
> 
> 
> *We would be living through a new Ice Age by the year 2000.*
> ...



There is a basic difference between Science and Faith.  Science continues to test it's theories, and makes revisions; Faith has gone on for many thousands of years, untested and unchanged.


----------



## Votto (Jun 23, 2019)

Wry Catcher said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > I got this from a Delingpole article, and I  found this list to be pretty interesting.
> ...



Lies.

It seems to me that religion changes a good bit as well.  Just look at how they used to believe that the earth was the center of the universe, or that you could buy your way out of purgatory.

These views were later done away with once the interpretation of scripture was held under better scrutiny.


----------



## otto105 (Jun 23, 2019)

Votto said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Votto said:
> ...




Dude, WTF are you freaking posting about in regard to PC? PC as you know it wasn’t even a term until the 1980’s.

Before that it was established religion that forced scientists to heel.


----------



## justoffal (Jun 23, 2019)

Votto said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



Georges Lemaître - Wikipedia


----------



## Votto (Jun 23, 2019)

otto105 said:


> Votto said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



After Einstein made a name for himself, he had a reputation to protect.

This meant being weary about challenging established beliefs within the scientific community.

He was being PC when confronted with the Big Bang theory and laughed at it.

PC has always been there, even if the term had not yet been created.


----------



## james bond (Jun 23, 2019)

RealDave said:


> First of all, Earth Day was not about CO2 emissions.  It was about smog & particulates and that air pollution along with poilution in our waters.  Those predctions did not come true because action was taken & pollution greatly reduced.
> 
> Ozone predictions did not come true because action wass taken.  Things were banned.
> 
> ...



More idiotic lies by a messed up liar.  None of your predictions have come true.  You are worse than that Norman guy on Bates Motel haha.

Earth Day was about helping trees and recycling paper.  Did you do anything?  I helped mulch trees and donated my paper for free shredding.

The ozone hole is large as ever and getting larger even though ozone depleting substances were reduced to zero (Montreal Protocol).  The belief is now that the ozone layer is controlled by natural factors.  This shows President Donald Trump was right to back out of the Paris Treaty against CO2.  Talk about "faith-based" science and believing in the CO2 spaghetti monster.  It's all a scary fairy tale based on trends that aren't there.  And reducing CO2 will help save us by magic.

Sea levels are not rising due to the Archimedes Principle.  We aren't getting rising seas due to land runoff.  The Grace satellites tell us that.






Anyway, you should take your own advice.  No need to respond.  We'll figure it out when you did it and celebrate.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 23, 2019)

Wry Catcher said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > I got this from a Delingpole article, and I  found this list to be pretty interesting.
> ...




Yet you call man made climate change a fact yet can't tell us how much is natural and how much is man made.


.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jun 23, 2019)

Votto said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



Your spin won't turn.  Faith in a GOD, has never been tested, never revised and always taken by some as an absolute.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 23, 2019)

Wry Catcher said:


> There is a basic difference between Science and Faith.  Science continues to test it's theories, and makes revisions; Faith has gone on for many thousands of years, untested and unchanged.


There are many different religions across the globe in competition with each other in the market place of ideas and cosmologies.

The science Establishment has no such competition, tries to exterminate what little there is and speaks as though it has a monopoly on Truth.

There is more testing and change in religion by far, but it is not empirical testing, it is the competitive testing of free thought.


----------



## otto105 (Jun 23, 2019)

Votto said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > Votto said:
> ...




That’s just a load of political bullshit. When any new theory is introduced people will question it and Einstein’s met the test. Consensus was reached and his theory became the new standard.

Your comparing that to PC is laughable.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jun 23, 2019)

bear513 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



I'm not a scientist; my point of view is to believe the scientists at NOAA and not people on this message board or Trump&Co.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 23, 2019)

Wry Catcher said:


> I'm not a scientist; my point of view is to believe the scientists at NOAA and not people on this message board or Trump&Co.


Ah, Argument by Authority.

You would have made an excellent Middle Ages Catholic.

Ever try thinking for yourself, bubba?


----------



## Likkmee (Jun 23, 2019)

Go take a Tylenol PM and get some rest. It's safe. Trust Them.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jun 23, 2019)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > There is a basic difference between Science and Faith.  Science continues to test it's theories, and makes revisions; Faith has gone on for many thousands of years, untested and unchanged.
> ...



'Wow what a bunch baloney ^^^. 

P1:  They all believe in a GOD, GODS or Creators.

P2:  Wrong, the Scientific Method has few laws, and all discoveries are tested, including the established laws, and tested again and again and again.

P3:  Organized Religions rarely change and when they do it has its detractors.


----------



## otto105 (Jun 23, 2019)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not a scientist; my point of view is to believe the scientists at NOAA and not people on this message board or Trump&Co.
> ...




Comparing 1000 of scientists is not the same as a Middle Ages Pope ahole.


----------



## Ernie S. (Jun 23, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...


I never said any of that. What I asked was, who are we as humans to decide what the earth's average temperature should be?
Or are you so egotistical that you assume that the earth is here for your comfort?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 23, 2019)

Wry Catcher said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



No, it is only baloney in your view because you do not understand what was said to you, because if you did you wouldn't react that way, lol.



Wry Catcher said:


> P1:  They all believe in a GOD, GODS or Creators.



According to the Big Bang, time started at that split second, and there was no time before that, which means whatever initiated the Big Bang, or whatever form of time you  my surmise preceded it,  that thing is not within the flow of time, and according to laws of physics, we know that zero time flow means infinite mass, and that means infinite power.

Cantors transfinite Number theory suggests that such a thing would be a 'set of all possible sets', meaning that this thing would be intelligent and have other positive characteristics, as opposed to characteristics that are due to a lack of a thing, such as shadow or lack of virtue. In fact, Cantor thought he had proven the existence of the Creator with his mathematical  models.

There is nothing irrational or anti-science about believing in a Creator.



Wry Catcher said:


> P2:  Wrong, the Scientific Method has few laws, and all discoveries are tested, including the established laws, and tested again and again and again.



The Scientific Method has few flaws, true, but SCIENTISTS have lots of flaws, being merely human.

You think no one has committed fraud in scientific research? lol



Wry Catcher said:


> P3:  Organized Religions rarely change and when they do it has its detractors.



Everything has detractors, making the observation meaningless.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jun 23, 2019)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



Hydrogen is an element and elements do not have moral compasses, write ten commandments or rest after six days.  I can bring hydrogen to a debate, could you provide God?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 23, 2019)

Wry Catcher said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



What does that link have to do with my simple question?

Now tell us how much is it man made and how much is it natural.



.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jun 23, 2019)

bear513 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



Your simple question was answered, sad that you could not understand it.  I'll repeat it, so you may find someone to explain it to you:

"I'm not a scientist; my point of view is to believe the scientists at NOAA and not people on this message board or Trump&Co."


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 23, 2019)

Wry Catcher said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...




What does a scientist have to do with my simple question?


You know how do use Google, please tell USMB how much is it man made and how much is it natural?










Oh yeah no one knows.


And there lies the problem to your fantasy of environmental social justice.


.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 23, 2019)

Wry Catcher said:


> Hydrogen is an element and elements do not have moral compasses, write ten commandments or rest after six days.  I can bring hydrogen to a debate, could you provide God?



Lol, could you bring a Black hole?
No?

I guess they don't exist then.

Dude, that is the kind of 'reasoning' I find most atheists employ to hide from God.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 24, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > I got this from a Delingpole article, and I  found this list to be pretty interesting.
> ...



On that, you are the one who is quite wrong...CFC's have been measured in the ozone layer at a concentration of about 3 parts per BILLION.  Also measured in the ozone layer is nitrogen which readily reacts with ozone at a concentration of about 750,000 parts per million, and naturally occurring NO which is an effective catalyst for O3 as CFC's which is measured at something like 5 parts per million.  A lonely molecule existing in a concentration of 3 parts per billion is not, never was, and never will be a threat to the ozone layer when natural reactants and catalysts for O3 present at a total of over 750,000 parts per million are not a threat to the ozone layer...in this, you have been bamboozled by bullshit...the facts simply don't support the claim.

The "hole" over antarctica and the lesser hole over the arctic are seasonal in nature and are due to the lack of incoming solar radiation during the dark of winter...there was never going to be a disaster...and for a smart guy, you seem to be quite unaware of the nature of ozone.  The ozone layer is the result of incoming UV radiation breaking O2 into O...some of which forms O3...a highly unstable molecule.  Maybe you are unaware that the half life of an O3 molecule in the ozone layer is measured in seconds.  You sound like you believe that if a CFC molecule happens to destroy an O3 molecule, it won't be replaced in milliseconds.  

Do some research rather than accepting the hysterical handwaving of alarmists with an agenda...


----------



## RealDave (Jun 24, 2019)

Ernie S. said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



So you are obviously for reducing emissions.  Right?


----------



## RealDave (Jun 24, 2019)

bear513 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...




Here is what we know.  We look at the rise in CO2 concentrations & we do know that the vast majority is due to man made emissions.

The only fantasy is your thinking you know more than the scientists.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 24, 2019)

RealDave said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...




Well you don't know much If you think it is just coming from emissions


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 24, 2019)

RealDave said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...




And once again you and your so called " junk scientist" think 30 years or less worth of data is an accurate representation of an earth 4.5 billion years old?


.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 24, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...




Still can't tell us what the Earth's temperature should be?


----------



## RealDave (Jun 24, 2019)

bear513 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...


 So why are you for man changing it.

It can't argue man should not decide & then say it is OK to change it through emissions.

We should work towards maintaining our current climate or as close to where it was before the AGW effects started to take effect.

Changes in our climate will change our current society & civilization based on that climate.  Effects will be felt on our coastlines & even upstream.  Rising levels will require either abandonment of structures & infrastructure or major construction done

Changes in temperature will not be uniform.  Some areas might see a 6 degree rise & some maybe 2.   Changes in precipitation could bring droughts or floods.  All drastically affecting agriculture.  We could lose our bread basket.

SThis is why we should fight climate change.  To keep the climate on which this country & planet was built.


----------



## sparky (Jun 24, 2019)

Scientists amazed as Canadian permafrost thaws 70 years early

~S~


----------



## RealDave (Jun 24, 2019)

bear513 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...




As you ignore temperature measured records since the 1880s, historical records, geology, tree rings. ice cores, etc.


----------



## RealDave (Jun 24, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


 Yet.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jun 24, 2019)

sparky said:


> Scientists amazed as Canadian permafrost thaws 70 years early
> 
> ~S~





> LONDON (Reuters) - Permafrost at outposts in the Canadian Arctic is thawing 70 years earlier than predicted, an expedition has discovered, in the latest sign that the global climate crisis is accelerating even faster than scientists had feared.



I am amazed that you fell for this bullcrap, since over 90% of permafrost had already melted out in the last 20,000 years. It used to be in Iowa at 40 Degrees North, now it is at 60 degrees North. Yet the world warmed up, life increased greatly, large areas were RE forested where it used to be barren because of then widespread permafrost. No ecological disaster is found......

Don't you ever think past your nose?

Unit 7, Glaciers, Ice, & Permafrost

From Wikipedia

At the Last Glacial Maximum, continuous permafrost covered a much greater area than it does today, covering all of ice-free Europe south to about Szeged (southeastern Hungary) and the Sea of Azov (then dry land)[43] and East Asia south to present-day Changchun and Abashiri.[44] In North America, only an extremely narrow belt of permafrost existed south of the ice sheet at about the latitude of New Jersey through southern Iowa and northern Missouri, but permafrost was more extensive in the drier western regions where it extended to the southern border of Idaho and Oregon.[45] In the southern hemisphere, there is some evidence for former permafrost from this period in central Otago and Argentine Patagonia, but was probably discontinuous, and is related to the tundra. Alpine permafrost also occurred in the Drakensberg during glacial maxima above about 3,000 metres (9,840 ft)


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 24, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



If you want to build more nuke plants to reduce emissions, you'll have my support.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 24, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



Zero.


----------



## progressive hunter (Jun 24, 2019)

sparky said:


> Scientists amazed as Canadian permafrost thaws 70 years early
> 
> ~S~


since when did permafrost have a defrost by date,,,,


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 24, 2019)

RealDave said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



You are a narcissist, so you think if we didn't burn fossil fuels /deforest the climate wouldn't change?






.

.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 24, 2019)

sparky said:


> Scientists amazed as Canadian permafrost thaws 70 years early
> 
> ~S~




Did they ask the Indian scientist 2,000 years ago if they are correct?


.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 24, 2019)

Sunsettommy said:


> sparky said:
> 
> 
> > Scientists amazed as Canadian permafrost thaws 70 years early
> ...




These guys are worse then the 5,000 year old earth Bible thumpers. For some reason they think the earth is only a hundred years old.


.


----------



## RealDave (Jun 24, 2019)

bear513 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


 if "we" was everyone, yes.

As an individual, you would be part of a larger movement and yes.


----------



## RealDave (Jun 24, 2019)

bear513 said:


> sparky said:
> 
> 
> > Scientists amazed as Canadian permafrost thaws 70 years early
> ...


 
So we know nothing that happenmed over 35 years ago?  How fucking stupid can you be?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 24, 2019)

RealDave said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...




I don't ignore history,...



The climate will change if we are here or not and not a damn thing we can do to stop it narcissist.


.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jun 24, 2019)

bear513 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



He didn't write that, if you can't understand that from his comment maybe you need to take a remedial course in reading and comprehension.


----------



## Stormy Daniels (Jun 24, 2019)

JimBowie1958 said:


> I got this from a Delingpole article, and I  found this list to be pretty interesting.
> 
> 
> *We would be living through a new Ice Age by the year 2000.*
> ...



This is stupid, and terribly disappointing. I was hoping for real examples of consensus that were later disproven. Instead, all you've really done is pointed out things that _haven't happened yet_, things that have been averted (or at least mitigated) by changes in behaviors, or things that are being delayed because of technological developments.

Actually, there's another category. There are a handful of things that were never a consensus. You're relying on sensationalist claims by one person--which were only ever held by a small fringe of people--to claim a consensus, like the gas mask thing.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 24, 2019)

sparky said:


> Scientists amazed as Canadian permafrost thaws 70 years early
> 
> ~S~


Mathew is an idiot and his article is a fabrication of voo doo science. The arctic was ice free five times already this interglacial already. They do not recognize this as they are science of socialist doom sooth sayer's. Give us your wealth and become our slaves because we made up a crisis that isn't a crisis..

The anti-science crowd is growing restless as their power hungry lust is being ripped from them as we dont believe this bull shit anymore...


----------



## SSDD (Jun 24, 2019)

RealDave said:


> Here is what we know.  We look at the rise in CO2 concentrations & we do know that the vast majority is due to man made emissions.
> 
> The only fantasy is your thinking you know more than the scientists.



Actually, we know no such thing.  The fact is that our effect on the total CO2 in the atmosphere is very hard to detect.  You guys like to say what you believe as if it were actual science, but unlike you warmers....we skeptics can actually provide real science to support our positions. I am a skeptic because the actual evidence, the real science simply doesn't add up to impending catastrophe...I don't hold my position based on politics....I hold my position because I take time to look at the science and what science says, and what the media and politicians report are two very different things.

Here are numerous peer reviewed, published studies which show very clearly that our effect on the total atmospheric CO2 is largely unmeasurable.. human beings, with all our CO2 producing capacity don't even make enough CO2 to overcome the year to year variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery...

The fact is that the amount of CO2 we produce from year to year does not track with the amount of increase in atmospheric CO2. 

https://www.researchgate.net/public...SPHERIC_CO2_TO_ANTHROPOGENIC_EMISSIONS_A_NOTE

CLIP: “*A necessary condition for the theory of anthropogenic global warming is that there should be a close correlation between annual fluctuations of atmospheric CO2 and the annual rate of anthropogenic CO2 emissions*. Data on atmospheric CO2 and anthropogenic emissions provided by the Mauna Loa measuring station and the CDIAC in the period *1959-2011* were studied using detrended correlation analysis to determine whether, net of their common long term upward trends, the rate of change in atmospheric CO2 is responsive to the rate of anthropogenic emissions in a shorter time scale from year to year. … [*R]esults do not indicate a measurable year to year effect of annual anthropogenic emissions on the annual rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere*.”









If you look at the graph...assuming that you can read a graph...you will see for example, that there was a rise in our emissions between 2007 and 2008 but a significant decline in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Do you believe that human CO2 went somewhere to hide and waited around for some years before it decided to have an effect on the total atmospheric CO2 concentration? Then between 2008 and 2009, there was a decline in the amount of CO2 that humans emitted into the atmosphere, but a significant rise in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Then from 2010 to 2014 there was a large rise in man made CO2 emissions but an overall flat to declining trend in the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Between 2014 to 2016 there was a slight decline in man made CO2 emissions, but a pronounced rise in the atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Like I said, we produce just a fraction of the natural variation in the earth's own CO2 making machinery from year to year and we are learning that we really don't even have a handle on how much CO2 the earth is producing...the undersea volcanoes are a prime example of how much we don't know.


https://www2.meteo.uni-bonn.de/bibliothek/Flohn_Publikationen/K287-K320_1981-1985/K299.pdf

CLIP:  *“The recent increase of the CO2-content of air varies distinctly from year to year, rather independent from the irregular annual increase of global CO2-production from fossil fuel and cement, *which has since 1973 decreased from about 4.5 percent to 2.25 percent per year (Rotty 1981).”

*“*Comparative investigations (Keeling and Bacastow 1977, Newll et al. 1978, Angell 1981) found *a positive correlation between the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 and the fluctuations of sea surface temperature (SST) in the equatorial Pacific, which are caused by rather abrupt changes between upwelling cool water and downwelling warm water (“El Niño”) in the eastern equatorial Pacific. *Indeed the cool upwelling water is not only rich in (anorganic) CO2 but also in nutrients and organisms. (algae) which consume much atmospheric CO2 in organic form, thus reducing the increase in atmospehreic CO2. Conversely the warm water of tropical oceans, with SST near 27°C, is barren, thus leading to a reduction of CO2 uptake by the ocean and greater increase of the CO2. … A crude estimate of these differences is demonstrated by the fact that *during the period 1958-1974, the average CO2-increase within five selective years with prevailing cool water only 0.57 ppm/a [per year], while during five years with prevailing warm water it was 1.11 ppm/a. Thus in a a warm water year, more than one Gt (1015 g) carbon is additionally injected into the atmosphere, in comparison to a cold water year.”*


Practically every actual study ever done tells us that increases in CO2 follow increases in temperature...that means that increased CO2 is the result of increased temperature, not the cause of increased temperature...which makes sense since warm oceans hold less CO2 and as they warm, they outages CO2.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...spheric_carbon_dioxide_and_global_temperature






CLIP" 
“There exist a clear phase relationship between changes of atmospheric CO2 and the different global temperature records, whether representing sea surface temperature, surface air temperature, or lower troposphere temperature, *with changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2 always lagging behind corresponding changes in temperature.”*

(1) The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.

(2) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.

(3) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.

(4) Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.

(5) Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.

(6) *CO2 released from anthropogenic sources apparently has little inﬂuence on the observed changes in atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.*

(7) On the time scale investigated, the overriding effect of large volcanic eruptions appears to be a reduction of atmospheric CO2, presumably due to the dominance of associated cooling effects from clouds associated with volcanic gases/aerosols and volcanic debris.

(8)* Since at least 1980 changes in global temperature, and presumably especially southern ocean temperature, appear to represent a major control on changes in atmospheric CO2.*







SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

CLIP: “[T]he warming and cooling of the ocean waters control how much CO2 is exchanged with atmosphere and thereby controlling the concentration of atmospheric CO2. It is obvious that when the oceans are cooled, in this case due to volcanic eruptions or La Niña events, they release less CO2 and when it was an extremely warm year, due to an El Niño, the oceans release more CO2. [D]uring the measured time 1979 to 2006 there has been a continued natural increase in temperature causing a continued increase of CO2 released into the atmosphere. This implies that temperature variations caused by El Niños, La Niñas, volcanic eruptions, varying cloud formations and ultimately the varying solar irradiation control the amount of CO2 which is leaving or being absorbed by the oceans.”


https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef800581r

CLIP: “[With the short (5−15 year) RT [residence time] results shown to be in quasi-equilibrium, this then supports the (independently based) conclusion that the long-term (∼100 year) rising atmospheric CO2 concentration is not from anthropogenic sources but, in accordance with conclusions from other studies, is most likely the outcome of the rising atmospheric temperature, which is due to other natural factors. This further supports the conclusion that global warming is not anthropogenically driven as an outcome of combustion.”


Error - Cookies Turned Off

*“[T]he trend in the airborne fraction *[ratio of CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere to the CO2 flux into the atmosphere due to human activity] since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.”

Like it or not, that last sentence means that there simply is not a discernible trend in the percentage of atmospheric CO2 that can be linked to our emissions...that is because in the grand scheme of things, the amount of CO2 that we produce is very small...not even enough to have any measurable effect on the year to year variation of the earth's own CO2 making processes...

Here is a paper from James Hansen himself...the father of global warming and the high priest of anthropogenic climate change...

Climate forcing growth rates: doubling down on our Faustian bargain - IOPscience

CLIP: “However, it is the dependence of the airborne fraction on fossil fuel emission rate that makes the post-2000 downturn of the airborne fraction particularly striking. *The change of emission rate in 2000 from 1.5% yr-1 [1960-2000] to 3.1% yr-1 [2000-2011], other things being equal, would [should] have caused a sharp increase of the airborne fraction”  




*


Even someone who can't read a graph should be able to look at that one produced by hansen and see that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere simply does not track with the amount of CO2 that we produce.

You can go on endlessly about what you believe...and what you have been told but when you look at the actual science, it is clear that what you believe and what you have been told simply is not true. That is the problem with letting someone else provide you with an opinion...if they don't want you to know the problems inherent in your opinion, they don't give you information like the published, peer reviewed papers above...they simply let you believe that we are the cause of rising CO2 in the atmosphere and tell you that it is true without having any data at all to support the claim.

You continue to believe what you like...it is clear by now that is precisely what you will do...but the information above is peer reviewed and published by climate scientists...and supports my claim that we are no the ones driving the amount of CO2 present in the atmosphere. I am pretty sure that you will disregard all the data above in favor of what you want to believe...which makes you the denier...not me. I can provide actual published science to support my claim...published science which you will deny in favor of your belief and political leaning.

I always enjoy pointing out who the real deniers are.  Now if you can produce some actual peer reviewed, published science that supports your claim that we are the ones who are to blame for CO2 levels increasing, I would like to see it.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 24, 2019)

Stormy Daniels said:


> Actually, there's another category. There are a handful of things that were never a consensus. You're relying on sensationalist claims by one person--which were only ever held by a small fringe of people--to claim a consensus, like the gas mask thing.



I am old enoug that I lived through those years.  We had the same Establishment/Media goffballs then that we are being led by the nose with today, and there was a consensus of the same sort; major media story after story where scientists were trotted out to say the corporate line and create hysteria and doom-gloom.

It is all bullshit and everyone realizes that actually grasps how science works and doesn't simply mindlessly repeat the latest corporate media science bullshit.

Which is the whole point of the article, numbnuts.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 24, 2019)

SSDD said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Here is what we know.  We look at the rise in CO2 concentrations & we do know that the vast majority is due to man made emissions.
> ...



*The fact is that our effect on the total CO2 in the atmosphere is very hard to detect.  *

Wow!
You're actually getting dumber.

*If you look at the graph...assuming that you can read a graph...you will see for example, that there was a rise in our emissions between 2007 and 2008 but a significant decline in the atmospheric CO2 concentration*






If you look at the graph...assuming that you can read a graph...you'd see that atmospheric CO2 increased in 2007, in 2008, in 2009...in every year on your graph.


----------



## RealDave (Jun 24, 2019)

bear513 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


They combine that 30 years of data with previous year's data.

Why do you think data 30 years ago is not valid?

Do you think we had zero data on climate in 1990?

We had sufficient data to know we had a problem with rising CO2 & rising temperatures.

Scientists saw this & recognized the need to study it further.  They put in more measuring stations & improved the measuring devices.

And because they did this, you think it invalidates climate science.

Wow.,  You really are quite the ignorant ass.


----------



## RealDave (Jun 24, 2019)

SSDD said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Here is what we know.  We look at the rise in CO2 concentrations & we do know that the vast majority is due to man made emissions.
> ...


 You quote a known skeptic.

We know that the Earth removes CO2 from the atmosphere.  Do you think  it always removes the same amount???  This guy thinks that the more man emits, it must reflect in the total amount but is this necessary the case???


----------



## RealDave (Jun 24, 2019)

bear513 said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


 So you now claim there is another reason out temps are rising this fast.

What is it?


----------



## RealDave (Jun 24, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


So, we should ignore the danger.  How many huge tsunamis hit Japan a year?


----------



## RealDave (Jun 24, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...


  Your backyard?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 24, 2019)

RealDave said:


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



*So, we should ignore the danger.  *

Why should we ignore the danger of CO2?

*How many huge tsunamis hit Japan a year?*

AFAIK, 1 in the last decade.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 24, 2019)

RealDave said:


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



I live in Illinois, the state is lousy with them.
Bring it on.


----------



## RealDave (Jun 24, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


I remember, the ones the leaked.  Explains a lot.


----------



## Olde Europe (Jun 24, 2019)

mamooth said:


> Most of those were not scientific consensus. The cooling predictions were by deniers.
> 
> For two of them, ozone and acid rain, the predictions were for what would happen if nothing was done. That is, they're fine examples of the consensus being correct, and thus saving our asses by prompting us to action.
> 
> ...



3. Science - rightly understood - never claims to be in possession of the truth.  They just claim to be in possession of the best explanation for observable phenomena at that time.  The OP rests on the false conception that having been wrong destroys science.

4. Science was frequently wrong.  We learn about that because of science, because it is self-examining and self-correcting.

5. Delingpole is a moron.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 24, 2019)

RealDave said:


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



You have a list of "the ones that leaked"?
Post it up, buttercup.


----------



## RealDave (Jun 24, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



One in how many years?

I am not ignoring the dangers of too much CO2, you are.


----------



## RealDave (Jun 24, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


Are you claiming there were no nuclear plants in Illinois that leaked?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 24, 2019)

RealDave said:


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



*One in how many years?*

Can you not read?

AFAIK, 1 in the last decade.

Do I need to explain the number of years in a decade?

*I am not ignoring the dangers of too much CO2, you are.*

I'm willing to build dozens of new nuke plants, to save us from CO2.
Mentioning nuclear power seems to make you wet yourself.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 24, 2019)

RealDave said:


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



You made the claim, post your list. Unless you were lying...….


----------



## RealDave (Jun 24, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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


https://projects.bettergov.org/power-struggle/leaks.html

Leaky, leaky leaky.  Ahhh whats a few thousands gallons of radioactive water.  

Because these facilities are safe?  They built them to withstand the largest earthquake  in that region.  Well, at least they told us that but then they told us they wouldn't leak.


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Jun 24, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > I got this from a Delingpole article, and I  found this list to be pretty interesting.
> ...


none of these doomsday scenarios ever come true and the logic behind them is the same thing con men have been using for centuries, "global warming is the reason it snowed in the desert"..."man made pollution is the reason the only continent without indigenous human life has a hole in its ozone"...no contradictions are allowed to surface in a scam...I have been surviving earth shattering, life ending, ecological disasters of all kinds since the 50's, throw what ya want at me, I'll not only survive, I'll thrive...bring it on.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 24, 2019)

RealDave said:


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




* Leaky, leaky leaky. Ahhh whats a few thousands gallons of radioactive water. *

Well, at least it won't kill us all, like CO2, eh?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 24, 2019)

Frankeneinstein said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



"We have to save the nation/humanity/the planet and we have to do it now, imme3diately or all is lost!"

"No, you don't have time to collect evidence, verify sources and give it thought! Speed is of the essence! We must act now or we will all perish!"

"Yes, I am making millions off all this in the meantime, but that is  irrelevant, we must ACT NOW!"


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Jun 24, 2019)

JimBowie1958 said:


> "We have to save the nation/humanity/the planet and we have to do it now, imme3diately or all is lost!"
> 
> "No, you don't have time to collect evidence, verify sources and give it thought! Speed is of the essence! We must act now or we will all perish!"
> 
> "Yes, I am making millions off all this in the meantime, but that is irrelevant, we must ACT NOW!"


"now open the vault"


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 24, 2019)

RealDave said:


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




What's to much 5 times????


----------



## SSDD (Jun 24, 2019)

RealDave said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...




I have provided 7 peer reviewed, published papers which state pretty clearly that our contribution to the atmospheric CO2 concentration is so negligible so as to be nearly undetectable...do you have any particular problem with either the data or the methodology?  Obviously the peer reviewers didn't, nor did the publishers..and in so far as I know, none of the papers have been retracted because of errors...do you have any actual science that calls the findings in the papers into question?  Or do you just have an uninformed opinion?


----------



## Zorro! (Jun 24, 2019)

cnm said:


> Zorro! said:
> 
> 
> > A 2018 study found that Tuvalu’s total land area grew nearly 3 percent from 1971 to 2014. Satellite and aerial photos showed eight of Tuvalu’s nine atolls and three-quarters of its reef islands increased in size over the last four decades.
> ...


*STUDY: Pacific Islands Getting Bigger*

Sea Levels have been rising for 20,000 years, yet islands continue to form and grow.

New Zealand researchers examined aerial photos and satellite images of islands in Tuvalu’s nine atolls and 101 reef islands over the last four decades. Eight of the atolls and three-quarters of the reef islands *grew during that time*, according to the University of Auckland study.​

“The dominant mode of change over that time on Tuvalu has been expansion, not erosion.”​
Tuvalu’s total land area grew nearly 3 percent from 1971 to 2014. Kench’s study contradicts predictions by scientific bodies and activists that Tuvalu, and other Pacific islands, would be swallowed up by the rising sea, spurred by manmade global warming.​
These aren't predictions, these are physical measurements.  When predictions are in conflict with physical measurements, you have to go with the measurements.


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Jun 24, 2019)

Zorro! said:


> When predictions are in conflict with physical measurements, you have to go with the measurements.


Not if there isn't any money in it


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 25, 2019)

https://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/article/Colorado-s-snowpack-is-40-times-normal-after-rare-14036967.php


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jun 25, 2019)

bear513 said:


> Yet you call man made climate change a fact yet can't tell us how much is natural and how much is man made.


So? Why would we have to know those exact percentages? That's not how science works. What an idiotic talking point.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jun 25, 2019)

Frankeneinstein said:


> Not if there isn't any money in it


And this is, easily, the most barrassingly retarded denier talking point of them all. 

Gee,if only the cash strapped, destitute fossil fuel industry had money, so they could fund the RIGHT science, right?

Fucking retarded....


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jun 25, 2019)

SSDD said:


> I have provided 7 peer reviewed, published papers which state pretty clearly that our contribution to the atmospheric CO2 concentration is so negligible so as to be nearly undetectable..


No you haven't, you shameless little liar.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 25, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Yet you call man made climate change a fact yet can't tell us how much is natural and how much is man made.
> ...




So you want to bankrupt the world on .0000000000000000002% ?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jun 25, 2019)

bear513 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


No,and what a silly question. What is the affect of that increase? Do you even know what you are asking? Nope. And whem did I propose bankrupting anyone?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 25, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...




What silly question? no one knows how much it is natural and how much it is caused by man.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jun 25, 2019)

bear513 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


 We actually have a very good idea of that. We can actually measure the heat input, and the sources of emissions. You are just making shit up.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 25, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



So you a Dave's sock now?


NASA C02 satellite


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 25, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...




And making shit up I watched these congressional hearings, did you?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jun 25, 2019)

bear513 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


Why did you post that image? What does it mean? What is your point? You have no idea, and that's a fact.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 25, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Yet you call man made climate change a fact yet can't tell us how much is natural and how much is man made.
> ...



*So? Why would we have to know those exact percentages?*

If it's 10% and 90% Mother Nature, you'd have to be a moron to waste trillions to solve 10% of the problem.

There you are!!!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jun 25, 2019)

bear513 said:


> And making shit up


Yep. Virtually nonstop. You know less than nothing about this topic and really should not even open your mouth about it.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 25, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



Translation~ you're an uneducated voter if you don't know what it means.


.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jun 25, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> If it's 10% and 90%


Which is irrelevant and not a good representation of the range of uncertainty. You just got an F on an 8th grade science test. And, really, a D- for denier trolling. Weak sauce.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jun 25, 2019)

bear513 said:


> Translation~ you're an uneducated voter if you don't know what it means.


I didnt say i don't understand it. Pay attention! I asked YOU what it means. Since you posted it. And, the fact is, you have no idea. You do that a LOT.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 25, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > And making shit up
> ...




I know everything about this topic politically wise been studying since the early 1970s 


Try me ...


.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jun 25, 2019)

bear513 said:


> I know everything about this topic politically wise


I don't care. You spoke to the science. Again, please try to focus. It's like you dont even know what you said 5 minutes ago.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 25, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Translation~ you're an uneducated voter if you don't know what it means.
> ...




I know what it means, you play dumb and talk about emissions.


.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jun 25, 2019)

bear513 said:


> I know what it means


Hmm, no,i don't think you do. That's why you can't tell me.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jun 25, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > I know what it means
> ...




Still playing dumb, of course you are.


.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jun 25, 2019)

bear513 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


Well that response made no sense.

And I notice you sure are doing a lot of work to avoid telling me how that image is relevant, or what point it supports. Who do you think you are fooling? Yourself?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 25, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > If it's 10% and 90%
> ...



*Which is irrelevant*

IF we reduce our 10% to zero, how many trillions should we spend to try to fight against a natural cause?

*You just got an F on an 8th grade science test. *

Big talk from a 3rd grader.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jun 25, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> IF we reduce our 10% to zero, how many trillions should we spend to try to fight against a natural cause?


An idiotic question, as we know it is much higher. 

Sorry toddinator, your middle school trolling is just not effective with me. Bear, though...you can probably make him degenerate into an amorphous, drooling blob of anger and then get all the attention you desire. I wish you the best.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 25, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > IF we reduce our 10% to zero, how many trillions should we spend to try to fight against a natural cause?
> ...



*as we know it is much higher. *

Cool.

So what are the real percentages?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jun 25, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Irrelevant. Same as the first 500 times you tried to annoy people by asking it, so that you could, hopefully, get some attention from a stranger on the internet.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 25, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



*Irrelevant.*

You said it was much higher. Post your proof.

Unless you were lying again?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jun 25, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You said it was much higher. Post your proof.


No. But i will direct you to the most recent IPCC report, where you can read for yourself the proof and conclusions offered by the worlda scientists. . They did do a pretty good job of presenting a lot of things for the layperson. But, of course, doing this minimum amount of work would require you to be honestly interested in learning about the topic, which you are not.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 25, 2019)

bear513 said:


> You know how do use Google, please tell USMB how much is it man made and how much is it natural?



110% is the mean estimate from AR5.

That is, all the warming is man made, and in attention, it would have cooled slightly without man made factors.



> Oh yeah no one knows.



At least you're consistent. You're always completely ignorant about the science.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 25, 2019)

Ernie S. said:


> I never said any of that. What I asked was, who are we as humans to decide what the earth's average temperature should be?



Moral people with common sense. A fast change in climate will cost trillions and make a lot of people suffer and die. Moral people with common sense try to avoid such situations.



> Or are you so egotistical that you assume that the earth is here for your comfort?



You're kind of an evil Gaian, hoping that climate makes people suffer and die for the glory of your political cult.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 25, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> How many new nuke plants should we build?



None, as they're astonisingly expensive. It's far more cost-effective to build more renewables, or natural gas turbines if more baseload is needed.

Under the "more nukes" plan, electric bills triple. That won't be popular.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 25, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > You said it was much higher. Post your proof.
> ...



*No.*

LOL!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 25, 2019)

mamooth said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > How many new nuke plants should we build?
> ...



*None, as they're astonisingly expensive.*

Money is no object, we have to save the polar bears!!!!

*Under the "more nukes" plan, electric bills triple. *

Weird, prices are triple in Germany with no nukes and massive amounts of renewables.


----------



## otto105 (Jun 25, 2019)

SSDD said:


> RealDave said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...




Carbon Dioxide | Vital Signs – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet


Maybe YOU should challenge the scientists from NASA.


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Jun 26, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Frankeneinstein said:
> 
> 
> > Not if there isn't any money in it
> ...


lol


----------



## Ernie S. (Jun 27, 2019)

mamooth said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > I never said any of that. What I asked was, who are we as humans to decide what the earth's average temperature should be?
> ...


You obviously don't understand my question or you are perhaps talking to your audience. Please review my last few posts and try to catch up.


----------



## otto105 (Jun 27, 2019)

Ernie S. said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



ernie, the Earth called and it wants us to stop pushing the temperature higher. 

We have thru man-made burning of fossil fuels already have decided that the Earth's temp should be higher. Why have YOU decided that is your decision?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 27, 2019)

otto105 said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



Modern economies need cheap, reliable energy.

Feel free to cook your food over a dung fire.


----------



## otto105 (Jun 27, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



Modern economies need reliable energy that doesn't pollute and cause healthcare related illnesses.

I can cook food over less expensive and cleaner renewable energy than your higher priced carbon based coal.


Thanks.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 27, 2019)

otto105 said:


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



*I can cook food over less expensive and cleaner renewable energy *

Is that why rates are so much higher in Germany?

Because their renewable energy is cheaper?


----------



## otto105 (Jun 27, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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




Doesn't bother the Germans, why should it bother you?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 27, 2019)

otto105 said:


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




*Doesn't bother the Germans, why should it bother you?*

You're right, Germany's renewable energy stupidity doesn't bother me.
Neither does your confusion about the cost of renewables.
Feel free to make a similar expensive mistake with your own money.

Leave me, and taxpayer dollars, out of it.


----------



## otto105 (Jun 27, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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




First, YOU don't live in Germany. 

YOU live in America where coal costs more than renewable energy.

So, YOU claiming to speak for taxpayers is laughable.

Additionally, you have no concept of total cost of ownership. 

Do you coal boy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 27, 2019)

otto105 said:


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



*
First, YOU don't live in Germany. *

German renewable energy is more expensive, but American renewable energy is cheaper? Link?

*YOU live in America where coal costs more than renewable energy.*

Can you prove that? Or are you just repeating a talking point?


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 27, 2019)

The climate crusaders still dont get it that if the public thinks the consensus is bogus, then the science doesnt matter anywhere outside it's own field. Clearly, the consensus science is having absolutely zero impact in the makers of public policy. They aren't impressed.....not even debatable.

It still holds that all the climate crusaders have is a flashy billboard to take bows in front of. Ghey


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 27, 2019)

otto105 said:


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



Lol.....modern economies will be going with cheap fossil fuels for energy for many decades to come, especially China who will be opening nearly 300 new coal plants by 2030. Cheap renewable energy is a myth bought only by suckers of the matrix.

But dont take my word for it.....check the last Obama EIA Projections report from early 2017. All you need to know.


----------



## otto105 (Jun 27, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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



The Coal Cost Crossover: 74% Of US Coal Plants Now More Expensive Than New Renewables, 86% By 2025


----------



## otto105 (Jun 27, 2019)

skookerasbil said:


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




China is still struggling to be a modern economy and their relying on legacy coal proves it.

Why Is China Placing A Global Bet On Coal?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 27, 2019)

otto105 said:


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



Let me know when Germany's prices are lower than ours, instead of three times ours.
Because they have tons of renewables.


----------



## otto105 (Jun 27, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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




Germany is a creditor nation with a long term energy plan.

You're living a debtor one, with a legacy energy plan.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 27, 2019)

otto105 said:


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



*
Germany is a creditor nation with a long term energy plan.*

And they have so much, cheap, renewable energy, that they pay triple the rate we do.

Maybe you should send them that Forbes link?

I'm sure the Communications Director at Energy Innovation can tell them what they're doing wrong.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jun 27, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Modern economies need cheap, reliable energy.


...which is precisely why we should be heavily subsidizing R&D for renewables and capacitors.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jun 27, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> And they have so much, cheap, renewable energy, that they pay triple the rate we do.


Wow! And that's due to renewable costs?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 27, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > And they have so much, cheap, renewable energy, that they pay triple the rate we do.
> ...



It's something else?


----------



## otto105 (Jun 27, 2019)




----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jun 27, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


We're about to find out, when you tell us. Wait, you don't know? Weird...kinda makes your point...well...useless, doesn't it?

I knew you didn't know.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 27, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


*We're about to find out,*

Excellent!

Be sure to ping me when you find out why cheaper renewables makes German energy prices higher.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jun 27, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


...and spoonfeed to you the information you pretended to know, to troll for attention. Gotcha. Thats pretty much a standing invite from you.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jun 28, 2019)

otto105 said:


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




Fake

Cost analysis at the end of production is ghey…….and how do we know?

Because if renewables were so cost effective, why will they still be fringe by mid-century!!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 28, 2019)

skookerasbil said:


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



Don't you understand?

The proof that renewables are cheaper is that every country that has a larger percentage of renewables pays much higher rates than we do. 

Liberal math!!!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jun 28, 2019)

...and were before renewables. But The Todderino is hoping everyone reading  this is as ignorant as he is.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 29, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ...and were before renewables. But The Todderino is hoping everyone reading  this is as ignorant as he is.



https://www.rheinpfalz.de/cgi-bin/c...box.html&path=/rhp/lokal&id=RON_1317468892744

CLIP:  "Covering the entire German energy demand of 2500 billion kwh per year – that includes heating, transportation and a large part of industry – with green technology would be impossible says the expert of the University of Konstanz. That would entail additional costs of 800 euros per household per month, and that is unaffordable,’ says Ganteför.”

CLIP: " …considerable change of lifestyle for every individual. Individual transportation and business production would have to be massively scaled back.”


Die Sonne im April 2019 und der € 4500 Milliarden Flop | Die kalte Sonne

CLIP:  "In this case, the installed capacity of wind power and photovoltaics would have to be increased sevenfold compared to today (with the same energy consumption).”

CLIP:  "The buffer capacity of the electric fleet is in the range of a few hours"

CLIP:  "So the parents of Fridays for the future understand the 4600 billion: 153 billion are in the year, at 40 million households in Germany every household paid €319 per month in the month - net. And when it comes to Gretl and their followers, namely 15 years 100% to reach renewable energy, then €628 would be the month - when it is because not previously come to a collapse of the German energy, what is very likely. €628 are 33% at a monthly average salary in Germany NET €1890. So, then, these households fall below the poverty threshold (60% of the average net income). Brave new world."

It is clear that you aren't really interested in science, but here is an analysis of what renewables would actually cost for poorer service.

Are renewables affecting income distribution and increasing the risk of household poverty? - ScienceDirect






It is possible to go on and  on and on with article and study after article and study on the extreme cost and inefficiency of renewables...how much more would you like to see?  Or is there any amount of analysis of the failure of renewables that would alter your suicidal wish to go green?  Are you completely determined to see all world economies go over the cliff like a bunch of lemmings?

Just as a side note....how are your survival skills?  Do you believe you could live and prosper as a hunter gatherer?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 29, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> ...and were before renewables. But The Todderino is hoping everyone reading  this is as ignorant as he is.









Carbon Crossroads: Can Germany Revive Its Stalled Energy Transition?

Geez, only an extra $181 billion over just the last five years to install some of those 
groovy, cheaper wind turbines. Extra. Not less.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 29, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > ...and were before renewables. But The Todderino is hoping everyone reading  this is as ignorant as he is.
> ...



They believe in renewabes like you believe in spontaneous two way energy flow between objects of different temperatures...no amount of observed measured evidence will ever convince them otherwise.  It is a matter of faith and evidence rarely says faith.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 29, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



Did you ever post your list of spontaneous photon sources in the solar system?
Using your moronic definition, there can't be too many.

Be sure to post more of your emails with professors. Haven't had a good laugh lately.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jun 29, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > ...and were before renewables. But The Todderino is hoping everyone reading  this is as ignorant as he is.
> ...


Of course, not one word of that refuted what I said.

Furthermore, we onow we cant do it with existing tech.  Thank you, Captain Obvious.  But...brace for it numbnuts ...tech gets better. Especially when we heavily subsidize it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jun 29, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Geez, only an extra $181 billion over just the last five years to install some of those
> groovy, cheaper wind turbines. Extra. Not less.


Well gee, if i were stupid enough to argue from a position of tech never improvong or getting more.economical or of never learning from these projects, i might be disconverted. But, since I am not putting on a act for attention whereon a pretend to be very stupid, I am not disconcerted.

By the way, morons like you were doing the same thing over 100 years ago, when the wright brothers were failing.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 29, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Geez, only an extra $181 billion over just the last five years to install some of those
> ...



I'd be more than happy to invest in more nuke plants.
Reliable and zero CO2.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 30, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



So your whole argument rests on pie in the sky technology that doesn't exist and to which there is no real profit motive to develop.  The fact is that everywhere renewables are placed, energy costs go up and energy security falls through the floor.


----------



## otto105 (Jun 30, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


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





Toddsterpatriot said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...




And when renewable here in the US are cheaper than polluted coal....I'm sure that you will gladly switch over to the future.


----------



## otto105 (Jun 30, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Sure, we can we bury the waste in your backyard.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 30, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > I have provided 7 peer reviewed, published papers which state pretty clearly that our contribution to the atmospheric CO2 concentration is so negligible so as to be nearly undetectable..
> ...



Clearly you wouldn't recognize science if it bit you on the ass...you are laughable...


----------



## SSDD (Jun 30, 2019)

bear513 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



He isn't playing....he is as dumb as a post....that is how he came to be such a top shelf dupe...you don't get fooled as badly as he has been fooled by "playing" dumb.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 30, 2019)

otto105 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...





otto105 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > RealDave said:
> ...



I asked you before what part of that steaming pile you linked to represents actual published science...to date, you haven't responded...we both know why...you know and I know that there is nothing there...it is an opinion piece published by the people who wrote it...nothing more...nothing less...


----------



## SSDD (Jun 30, 2019)

otto105 said:


> ernie, the Earth called and it wants us to stop pushing the temperature higher.



What do you think happens to the temperature when the earth is in the process of exiting an ice age?  

And I asked you before, what the ideal temperature is for life on planet earth...What's the matter?  No idea?  You think an ice age is the ideal climate for life on this planet?



otto105 said:


> We have thru man-made burning of fossil fuels already have decided that the Earth's temp should be higher. Why have YOU decided that is your decision?



Got any actual evidence to support that statement?  Didn't think so.


----------



## SSDD (Jun 30, 2019)

otto105 said:


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




Germany's economy and power grid is in a shambles...it is estimated that if they continue with their pledged change to renewables...the average power bill for german familes will be in the neighborhood of 850 euros per month...you really think they won't mind?


----------



## SSDD (Jun 30, 2019)

otto105 said:


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



You really don't have a clue...do you?

https://www.rheinpfalz.de/cgi-bin/c...box.html&path=/rhp/lokal&id=RON_1317468892744

CLIP: "Covering the entire German energy demand of 2500 billion kwh per year – that includes heating, transportation and a large part of industry – with green technology would be impossible says the expert of the University of Konstanz. That would entail additional costs of 800 euros per household per month, and that is unaffordable,’ says Ganteför.”

CLIP: " …considerable change of lifestyle for every individual. Individual transportation and business production would have to be massively scaled back.”


Die Sonne im April 2019 und der € 4500 Milliarden Flop | Die kalte Sonne

CLIP: "In this case, the installed capacity of wind power and photovoltaics would have to be increased sevenfold compared to today (with the same energy consumption).”

CLIP: "The buffer capacity of the electric fleet is in the range of a few hours"

CLIP: "So the parents of Fridays for the future understand the 4600 billion: 153 billion are in the year, at 40 million households in Germany every household paid €319 per month in the month - net. And when it comes to Gretl and their followers, namely 15 years 100% to reach renewable energy, then €628 would be the month - when it is because not previously come to a collapse of the German energy, what is very likely. €628 are 33% at a monthly average salary in Germany NET €1890. So, then, these households fall below the poverty threshold (60% of the average net income). Brave new world."

It is clear that you aren't really interested in science, but here is an analysis of what renewables would actually cost for poorer service.

Are renewables affecting income distribution and increasing the risk of household poverty? - ScienceDirect






It is possible to go on and on and on with article and study after article and study on the extreme cost and inefficiency of renewables...how much more would you like to see? Or is there any amount of analysis of the failure of renewables that would alter your suicidal wish to go green? Are you completely determined to see all world economies go over the cliff like a bunch of lemmings?


----------



## SSDD (Jun 30, 2019)

otto105 said:


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



When pigs fly....anyone who believes that sort of bullshit is an absolute idiot and even more gullible than anyone who believes in AGW...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 30, 2019)

otto105 said:


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



Can't wait. In the mean time, let's eliminate green subsidies and mandates.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 30, 2019)

otto105 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



Ok.


----------



## otto105 (Jun 30, 2019)

SSDD said:


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




Are you always on the losing side of the future?


----------



## SSDD (Jul 1, 2019)

otto105 said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...



A look at my stock portfolio would show you that I have rarely been on the losing side of the future in my long life.  I have always invested in technology stocks but have been very successful in separating good, practical ideas from pie in the sky wishes...

A bit of investment advice...if an idea can only maintain momentum by government subsidies, don’t waste your money on it.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 1, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



Of course it's irrelevant to you, because you will run away again.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 1, 2019)

otto105 said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...




Why today shouldn't the earth's temperature be higher when the earth was fine with it before?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 1, 2019)

otto105 said:


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



Coal cost more because of liberals 40 year war on coal you moron, next you will tell us smokes cost $12 bucks a pack in some US cities because of high shipping cost


----------



## SSDD (Jul 1, 2019)

bear513 said:


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



Liberal do gooding invariably most hurts those who can least afford to be hurt.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 2, 2019)

One has to wonder what, exactly, abu afak finds funny about liberal do gooding hurting the poor.  Very strange individual.


----------



## Ernie S. (Jul 2, 2019)

bear513 said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...


Exactly! Why should the temperature be compatible with human life? Why not dinosaurs or mastodons? What you people do is pick a random temperature and decide for the whole of nature, that that is the ideal. How utterly egotistical of you!


----------



## otto105 (Jul 2, 2019)

Ernie S. said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...




Yeah! We don't want to eat!


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 2, 2019)

otto105 said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



Why won't you ?

.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 2, 2019)

More bad news for the climate obsessed who keep telling us coal is dead..........


*G20 countries triple coal power subsidies despite climate crisis 

Major economies pledged a decade ago to phase out all aid for fossil fuels*


https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/25/g20-nations-triple-coal-power-subsidies-climate-crisis





As Ive said.......nobody is caring about the science!!!


*@WWW.WHOSNOTWINNING.COM*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 2, 2019)

bear513 said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



The last time the planet warmed, everything starved.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 2, 2019)

otto105 said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



So what is the ideal temperature for life on earth.  I have asked you several times but you don't seem to be able to say.  You clearly believe that it isn't the present temperature or a warmer temperature...so what is the ideal...and what evidence do you have to support the claim?  It would be very surprising to me to see any scientifically valid claim that the ideal temperature for life on earth could be found within an ice age..


----------



## SSDD (Jul 2, 2019)

bear513 said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> > Ernie S. said:
> ...



Guess he thinks food crops like the cold temperatures and short growing seasons associated with ice ages...what might farming look like with a growing season that stretched from late February to mid December...maybe there would be no more starving people..


----------



## Ernie S. (Jul 2, 2019)

SSDD said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > otto105 said:
> ...


And what kind of catastrophy would it be if you could suddenly grow food in the Sahara? Or Siberia?


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 2, 2019)

Humans have already adapted to a wide range of temperatures. The problem is a rate of change of temperature that is so fast that most species cannot adapt to it quickly enough. A supervolcano, large asteroid, or real fast increase in greenhouse gases, may create such a fast change in temperature.

An ideal temperature isn't the issue. It's a high rate of temperature change that will cause a hardship to life on earth. 

.


----------



## basquebromance (Jul 2, 2019)

"i'm not anti-science. i'm just a big fan of oxygen"


----------



## SSDD (Jul 3, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Humans have already adapted to a wide range of temperatures. The problem is a rate of change of temperature that is so fast that most species cannot adapt to it quickly enough. A supervolcano, large asteroid, or real fast increase in greenhouse gases, may create such a fast change in temperature.
> 
> An ideal temperature isn't the issue. It's a high rate of temperature change that will cause a hardship to life on earth.
> 
> .




Yet more bullshit...the only proxy studies that have sufficient resolution to to make claims about periods as small as 100 years show us that over the past 10,000 years, there have been temperature changes far exceeding anything we have seen in shorter time spans.

You have absolutely no evidence that the amount of, and rate of change we have seen is in any way extraordinary...in short, it is a fiction...a bald faced lie...entirely made up in an effort to support an alarmist narrative.  

Here are the proxy studies with sufficient resolution to make claims about temperature changes on century scales and they show precisely the opposite of what you, and other hand waving, hysterical alarmists claim.

First is the GISP2 study derived from ice cores taken in Greenland.  True, they are taken from above the Arctic circle, but ice cores are the only proxy capable of providing the resolution required to make claims on a century scale...and climate science has been telling us for decades that the polar regions are the canaries in the coal mine and whatever happens there, will follow globally.







The second gold standard temperature reconstruction is derived from the Vostok ice core in Antarctica.  A close look at the temperature change tracks nicely with the GISP2 study indicating that the changes, and rates of change were global...unless of course you can provide a rational, scientifically valid reason that polar temperature reconstructions would show similar temperature increases and decreases on similar time scales but the globe between the two ice cores was somehow left out of whatever change happened in the polar regions.






And an ideal temperature is precisely the issue.  It is the claim of climate science that an ice age provides the ideal temperature for life on planet earth and the fact that the earth is warming out of an ice age is cause for alarm and heralds impending catastrophe when the fact is that we haven't even warmed to the mean temperature from the time of the onset of the little ice age.  It is pure alarmist hysterical handwaving without basis in fact.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 3, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Humans have already adapted to a wide range of temperatures. The problem is a rate of change of temperature that is so fast that most species cannot adapt to it quickly enough. A supervolcano, large asteroid, or real fast increase in greenhouse gases, may create such a fast change in temperature.
> ...



Strawman, strawman, strawman.

First, the graphs you show have only a ± 2 ℃ span which is well within the ability for humans to survive. I never said life would not survive the temperature swings. Thank you for showing that point.

Second, I never said that a rapid rise in temperature has not happened before. We all know it has. It is within the natural variation over at least the last few thousand years. Thank you for showing that point. 

Third, I have not done any “_pure alarmist hysterical handwaving without basis in fact._” I said that fast global temperature changes will cause a hardship to life on earth. I did not say we are all going to die!!!

I would guess that rapid temperature swings over the last few thousand years caused hardship for some species, but *if* that were to continue from today, human hardship would be more serious because we are a much much larger population entrenched in coastal areas. Arable land would move to inconvenient places for farmers, etc. A large temperature change in 100 years is close to the current median life span so that people would have to adapt within their lifetime.  

Creating a strawman has bent you out of shape with your usual hysterical caustic invectives.

.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 3, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> I would guess that rapid temperature swings over the last few thousand years caused hardship for some species, but *if* that were to continue from today, human hardship would be more serious because we are a much much larger population entrenched in coastal areas.



Wild assed guesses...the stock in trade of hysterical handwaving alarmists....the maximum and minimum temperature on earth on any given day spans about 200 degrees...a degree in a decade would be nearly undetectable...


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 3, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Wild assed guesses...the stock in trade of hysterical handwaving alarmists....the maximum and minimum temperature on earth on any given day spans about 200 degrees...a degree in a decade would be nearly undetectable...



I told you many times I am not a CAGW warmist. Just because I challenge your hysterical denial of fake science doesn't mean that I believe much of the emotional hype in the news. Save your rant for somebody else.

.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 3, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > Wild assed guesses...the stock in trade of hysterical handwaving alarmists....the maximum and minimum temperature on earth on any given day spans about 200 degrees...a degree in a decade would be nearly undetectable...
> ...



Of course you are....anyone who would spout unsupportable nonsense about the dangers inherent in the rate of change when we are in the midst of a 20 year pause is most certainly an alarmist...you just never stop lying do you?


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 3, 2019)

SSDD said:


> Of course you are....anyone who would spout unsupportable nonsense about the dangers inherent in the rate of change when we are in the midst of a 20 year pause is most certainly an alarmist...you just never stop lying do you?



Strawman again. 
I thought you might purposely misread that so I purposely bold faced "*if*" in my post #364. But you misread it anyway. Look at it again. I have no idea nor conjecture what the future holds as far as the earths mean global temperature. Just because I criticize your fake physics made you want to "erroneously" jump to conclusions about what I think. You never stop lying do you. 

.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jul 3, 2019)

So, have the uneducated, nonscientist deniers cried long enough to dent the consensus yet?

No?

Weird!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 3, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> So, have the uneducated, nonscientist deniers cried long enough to dent the consensus yet?
> 
> No?
> 
> Weird!



No, SSDD's stupidity hasn't changed the 75/77 figure.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jul 3, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > So, have the uneducated, nonscientist deniers cried long enough to dent the consensus yet?
> ...


Well, nobody can change your delusions but you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 3, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



It's no delusion, SSDD is stupid.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 3, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> It's no delusion, SSDD is stupid.



It's hard to tell if he's a stupid, a "flat earth" type nut case, or a troll. 

.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 3, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > It's no delusion, SSDD is stupid.
> ...



Based on his discussion with Dr. Raeder, he's stupid.


----------



## Wuwei (Jul 3, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Thank you for the clarification. I was loosing sleep wondering about it. 

.


----------



## SSDD (Jul 4, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> So, have the uneducated, nonscientist deniers cried long enough to dent the consensus yet?
> 
> No?
> 
> Weird!



The consensus is falling apart on its own...actual science is being done these days and it isn't looking good for the AGW hypothesis...you, alas, are so blinded by your bias that you can't see the whole thing falling apart before your very eyes...you are a victim of groupthink...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jul 4, 2019)

SSDD said:


> The consensus is falling apart on its own...


Hmm,no, that's a ridiculous lie.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 4, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> SSDD said:
> 
> 
> > The consensus is falling apart on its own...
> ...


Exactly their was no consensus.

.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jul 4, 2019)

bear513 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > SSDD said:
> ...


And that's another ridculous lie.


Seriously, the best way to embarrass you guys is just to let you talk.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 4, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...




Tell us what did they agree on besides they love government grants?

.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jul 4, 2019)

bear513 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


Well,you see, they do this little thing called "IPCC" once in a while. And, if your question was genuine (it isn't, troll), you would have already read about this yourself.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 4, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...




The same IPCC  that said it was about environmental economic social justice?

Those guys???


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jul 4, 2019)

bear513 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


Bear, you know less than nothing about the IPCC. You know less than nothing about even the most basic scientific ideas in play. Go find another, fellow, ignorant denier heel to nod and cackle with you. You will be much happier.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 4, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...




I know all about them Fort fun, been studying this topic since I picked up my first copy of popular mechanics/ mechanics illustrated / popular science in the early 1970s


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jul 4, 2019)

bear513 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


Haha, no you don't. What a joke.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jul 4, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


Older and wiser then you, The IPCC didn't even exist back then.


.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 4, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



"Scientific idea's in play" only matter if they are having an impact in the real world.

I could be sporting a museum piece gorgan but if I'm not balling scores of women with it it's just another swinging dick.

All the science we've heard about for 20 years.....hasnt impressed ANYBODY in the public policy domain. In fact, Congress could not possibly be and more disinterested. In fact.....its kinda laughable.

Solar power still providing America with only about 1.5% of its electricity!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 4, 2019)

skookerasbil said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


28% of Americans are willing to spend at least $10 a month to fight AGW.

They're winning!!!!  LOL!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jul 4, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> skookerasbil said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


The goal is to get that number to negative. Don't worry.  You can sit there and naysay and cackle, and we will still let you enjoy the benefits.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jul 4, 2019)

bear513 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...


Well, when we need someone to dust off some science from a magazine in 1970, we will look you up.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 4, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > skookerasbil said:
> ...



Feel free to spend all your money on fighting AGW.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jul 4, 2019)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Inappropriate, lame roll response. I clearly said the goal it will eventually be cheaper than otherwise. If you cant be a decent troll, what good are you? 

Oh,and I will be spending some of your money to get there. Well,if you pay taxes at all.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 4, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



If it makes economic sense, you guys won't have to use force.
How will you sleep at night?


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 5, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...




Lol.....costs are never a concern to progressives like this guy. You never put these types in charge of anything. To them, anything is possible. Its asshats like this that are running Venezuela

Thankfully, most people recognize it's silly to spend trillions of $ on something you have no clue about about the outcome. Thank God progressives are a fringe entity in this country and seen by the masses to have less common sense than a small soap dish.


----------



## skookerasbil (Jul 5, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



Lol.....but s0n, you climate crusaders are the ones stuck in a time capsule. Talking for 20 years about " the science" now.....but who is giving a shit? 

Lol.....nobody!

Think it's about time to consider a strategy adjustment. I dont get it.....happily taking bumpy cucumbers all the time is ghey.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 8, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


You mean this IPCC:

(EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. *But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy.* Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. *One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy*.

Source;https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/n...-admits-we-redistribute-worlds-wealth-climate


----------



## mamooth (Jul 8, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> You mean this IPCC:



And right on cue, Billy trots out the faked Ottmar Edenhoffer quote. The lesson we learn here is that hardcore deniers _always_ lie, even when it's not necessary, because they get off on lying.

Note how Billy doesn't list an actual source for the quote. He lists a denier rag that made up a fake quote, and then pretends it's a source.

Obviously, I can link to the original, but first I'm going to have fun watching Billy scream. Then he'll lie about supposedly having read the original, and I'll get to point out he's lying. Great fun. Billy, please proceed.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jul 8, 2019)

mamooth said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > You mean this IPCC:
> ...



Again you make clear you are a poor reader since it was based on an INTERVIEW in Germany, the link to it was in the article you didn't read.

Go translate this HERE:

De facto ist das eine Enteignung der Länder mit den Bodenschätzen. Das führt zu einer ganz anderen Entwicklung als der, die bisher mit Entwicklungspolitik angestossen wurde.

Zunächst mal haben wir Industrieländer die Atmosphäre der Weltgemeinschaft quasi enteignet. Aber man muss klar sagen: Wir verteilen durch die Klimapolitik de facto das Weltvermögen um. Dass die Besitzer von Kohle und Öl davon nicht begeistert sind, liegt auf der Hand. Man muss sich von der Illusion freimachen, dass internationale Klimapolitik Umweltpolitik ist. Das hat mit Umweltpolitik, mit Problemen wie Waldsterben oder Ozonloch, fast nichts mehr zu tun.

You are too lazy to do it because you are full of baloney.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jul 9, 2019)

mamooth said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > You mean this IPCC:
> ...




What a lying piece of shit you are Snagletooth...  And were supposed to believe you when we can follow the links that show when and where the interview took place... Hell, there is even a video of it...  All you have is lying and deception....


----------



## mamooth (Jul 9, 2019)

Sunsettommy said:


> Again you make clear you are a poor reader since it was based on an INTERVIEW in Germany, the link to it was in the article you didn't read.



And the deniers lied about the translation. That's kind of the point.

Now, let me give you a better translation of the speech.
---
Fundamentally, it is a big mistake to discuss climate politics separately from the big issues of globalization. The climate summit in Cancún at end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves under our feet – and we can only add 400 gigatons more to the atmosphere if we want to stay within the 2 °C target. 11,000 to 400 – we have to face the fact that a large part of the fossil reserves must remain in the ground.

De facto, this is the expropriation of the countries with these natural resources. This leads to an entirely different development than the one that has been initiated with development policy.

First of all, we as industrialized countries have quasi expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must explicitly say: We de facto redistribute the world’s wealth due to climate politics. That the owners of coal and oil are not enthusiastic about this is obvious. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate politics is environmental politics. This has almost nothing to do any more with environmental politics, [as is was with] with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.
---

So, Mr. Edenhoffer said the _current environmental policies_ are a redistribution of wealth, allowing rich nations to dumb their trash on poor nations, instead of paying more to be responsible and not create the trash. He absolutely did not call for redistribution of wealth with climate policy. He was calling for an end to that redistribution of wealth.

Almost all deniers have peddling a lie about that for years now.

Up until now, you could use ignorance as an excuse concerning why you and Billy were pushing that fraud. You never read the speech. You only read the headline that your cult put on it, and as you always do, you instantly BELIEVED without looking further. After all, if you were skeptical, you wouldn't be deniers.

Now you can no longer use ignorance as an excuse. You know Mr. Edenhoffer did not call for wealth redistribution. Now you know your cult is ordering you to continue repeating a lie. I won't say that leaves you in a tough spot, because it doesn't. When the cult tells you to lie, you lie, period, no matter how crazy and dishonest it makes you look.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 9, 2019)

mamooth said:


> Sunsettommy said:
> 
> 
> > Again you make clear you are a poor reader since it was based on an INTERVIEW in Germany, the link to it was in the article you didn't read.
> ...



*So, Mr. Edenhoffer said the _current environmental policies_ are a redistribution of wealth, allowing rich nations to dumb their trash on poor nations, instead of paying more to not create trash. He absolutely did not call for redistribution of wealth with climate policy.*

He wants the rich countries to pay the poor countries.
He wants the rich countries to give the poor countries "clean energy", so they don't have to burn coal/oil.

How are these handouts not redistribution of wealth?


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Nov 23, 2021)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Wrong. Global cooling turned out to be a miscalculation.
> Acid rain is still with us. It’s just not as politically convenient for marxists as AGW is because acid rain is too geographically isolated.


Scrubbers were installed on power plants to remove the sulfur dioxide content from the exhaust, preventing formation of sulfuric acid that was damaging trees.


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory (Nov 23, 2021)

jwoodie said:


> Yes.  If oil becomes scare, the price will go up and alternative fuels will be used.


What do you consider alternative fuels?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 23, 2021)

I.E., 13 times consensus was upended by better and more science. Notice there is not one example of consensus being  upended because 30 million cultists squealed about it, or because your crazy uncle watched a YouTube video.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 23, 2021)

JimBowie1958 said:


> In his Dec. 10, 2007 Nobel Prize speech, Gore said “Last September 21, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented distress that the North Polar ice cap is "falling off a cliff." One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.


And the ONE example I actually look at is a lie. Which tells me some of the other ones likely are as well. This consensus was never upended and,in fact, is as strong as ever.









						Arctic Sea Ice Minimum | NASA Global Climate Change
					

Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. Current news and data streams about global warming and climate change from NASA.




					climate.nasa.gov


----------



## Old Rocks (Nov 23, 2021)

JimBowie1958 said:


> I got this from a Delingpole article, and I  found this list to be pretty interesting.
> 
> 
> *We would be living through a new Ice Age by the year 2000.*
> ...


If you got that from a Delingpole article and believed it you are either one stupid person or a liar like Delingpole.


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Nov 24, 2021)

Old Rocks said:


> If you got that from a Delingpole article and believed it you are either one stupid person or a liar like Delingpole.


/——/ I’m old enough to remember those predictions of global cooling.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 24, 2021)

Cellblock2429 said:


> /——/ I’m old enough to remember those predictions of global cooling.


You mean, you are gullible enough to be fooled by a fake magazine cover


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Nov 24, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You mean, you are gullible enough to be fooled by a fake magazine cover


/——-/ I owned the magazine. Global Cooling was all the rage back then. But I get it, you need to deny the existence of any evidence that runs counter to you fringe kook theory of today.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 24, 2021)

Cellblock2429 said:


> I owned the magazine.




You shameless liar









						Sorry, a TIME Magazine Cover Did Not Predict a Coming Ice Age
					

Here's the real cover




					time.com
				




Bye


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Nov 24, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You shameless liar
> 
> 
> 
> ...


/----/ Don't argue with a Baby Boomer who actually saw the cover.




__





						time magazine cover 1977 at DuckDuckGo
					

DuckDuckGo. Privacy, Simplified.




					duckduckgo.com


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 24, 2021)

Cellblock2429 said:


> /----/ Don't argue with a Baby Boomer who actually saw the cover.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sorry buddy... you got fooled. Them's the facts. Which shows every word out of your mouth so far is a lie.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 24, 2021)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> How are these handouts not redistribution of wealth?


They are.


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Nov 25, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Sorry buddy... you got fooled. Them's the facts. Which shows every word out of your mouth so far is a lie.


/---/ I'll dumb it down so you can understand. In 1977, I was 26 years old. I read Time and Newsweek every week. I read that issue.  If you're still confused ask your special ed teacher.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 25, 2021)

Cellblock2429 said:


> /---/ I'll dumb it down so you can understand. In 1977, I was 26 years old. I read Time and Newsweek every week. I read that issue.  If you're still confused ask your special ed teacher.


You did not, because that issue did not exist. You are lying. You posted a doctored cover you picked up on a lying blog site. I posted an article written by the person who wrote the cover story for the actual cover. You are just flat out lying, and everyone in the thread can see it. Pathetic.


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Nov 25, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You did not, because that issue did not exist. You are lying. You posted a doctored cover you picked up on a lying blog site. I posted an article written by the person who wrote the cover story for the actual cover. You are just flat out lying, and everyone in the thread can see it. Pathetic.


/----/ I understand why you scam artists want to deny global cooling.  In 1975, Newsweek Predicted A New Ice Age. We’re Still Living with the Consequences.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 26, 2021)

Cellblock2429 said:


> /----/ I understand why you scam artists want to deny global cooling.  In 1975, Newsweek Predicted A New Ice Age. We’re Still Living with the Consequences.


So you found one exaggerated article. But, being the ignoramus you are on this topic, you didn't know that the large majority of scientists all predicted warming at the time. One scientist thinking otherwise just does not mean much. So you aren't really making the point you think you are making.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 26, 2021)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> So you found one exaggerated article. But, being the ignoramus you are on this topic, you didn't know that the large majority of scientists all predicted warming at the time. One scientist thinking otherwise just does not mean much. So you aren't really making the point you think you are making.


That's a common theme. If one left or right person publishes something stupid, all left or right people feel the same way.

.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Nov 26, 2021)

JimBowie1958 said:


> I got this from a Delingpole article, and I  found this list to be pretty interesting.
> 
> 
> *We would be living through a new Ice Age by the year 2000.*
> ...


I don't mind cranks coming up with doom and gloom predictions, I'm actually concerned that the alarmist bakes believe them.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 26, 2021)

JimBowie1958 said:


> I got this from a Delingpole article, and I  found this list to be pretty interesting.
> 
> 
> *We would be living through a new Ice Age by the year 2000.*
> ...



That was true then, but we know for certain that American CO2 emissions are killing all life on Earth.

We have Consensus!

Science = Settled!


----------

