# I'm curious. Do RWs think AGW is a fraud simply because republicans told them it is?



## Billy000 (Jan 21, 2015)

I mean aside from skewed, non-peer-reviewed studies funded by oil companies, republicans are really the only ones saying it is a scam. The rest of the world laughs at them. I don't understand why they dont realize that. Republicans are either willfully ignorant on this issue or they are protecting the interests of big business. Why do you people listen to these corrupt douche bags?

RWs like to cite small studies that conflict with the findings of the 97% global consensus on this issue, but what they fail to realize is that they really don't understand how science works. Most of the studies that conflict with AGW are small in scope and not verified by independent researchers. Without independent verification, it is easy to skew the results of the studies and draw a fallacious conclusion.


----------



## westwall (Jan 21, 2015)

No, THINKING people know it's a fraud because there is zero empirical data to support the "CO2 drives the global temp theory."  Period.  Everything you clowns cite is based on computer models.  EVERYTHING.  Come back when you actually have some real data.

You do know what "data" is...right?


----------



## Siete (Jan 21, 2015)

CO2


----------



## Conservative65 (Jan 21, 2015)

Siete said:


> CO2


 You emit CO2 when you exhale.  Stop breathing if you think it's bad.


----------



## hadit (Jan 21, 2015)

Siete said:


> CO2



That is factually incorrect.  CO2 is invisible.  What you are seeing in that photo is water vapor and smoke particles.  Please do try again.


----------



## hadit (Jan 21, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Siete said:
> 
> 
> > CO2
> ...



Better yet, breathe on a plant.  They love the stuff.


----------



## Redfish (Jan 21, 2015)

Billy000 said:


> I mean aside from skewed, non-peer-reviewed studies funded by oil companies, republicans are really the only ones saying it is a scam. The rest of the world laughs at them. I don't understand why they dont realize that. Republicans are either willfully ignorant on this issue or they are protecting the interests of big business. Why do you people listen to these corrupt douche bags?
> 
> RWs like to cite small studies that conflict with the findings of the 97% global consensus on this issue, but what they fail to realize is that they really don't understand how science works. Most of the studies that conflict with AGW are small in scope and not verified by independent researchers. Without independent verification, it is easy to skew the results of the studies and draw a fallacious conclusion.


 

Billy do you know what AGW stands for?    Hint, its not climate change.


----------



## Siete (Jan 21, 2015)

more co2





pesky LA,


----------



## gipper (Jan 21, 2015)

No.

One would have to be a fool to believe the Rs.  However one would also have to be a fool to believe the statist progressive myth that is AGW.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Jan 21, 2015)

It's fraud because all the fraud that is behind it Billy Boy.  Tampered data, political agendas, etc... that's what makes it a fraud.  It isn't science, it's a political movement aimed at controlling people's behavior.


----------



## Conservative65 (Jan 21, 2015)

hadit said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Siete said:
> ...


 
All these GW nuts emit CO2 when they exhale.  Imagine if they all voluntarily stopped breathing to prove they believe what they claim CO2 does.


----------



## hadit (Jan 21, 2015)

Siete said:


> more co2
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That is also factually incorrect.  That is smog, not CO2.  CO2 is invisible, but please try again.  You'll get it right sometime, maybe.


----------



## hadit (Jan 21, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



It would certainly be a lot quieter.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Jan 21, 2015)

Siete said:


> CO2



No it isn't.....  you can';t see Co2... no to mention Co2 is essential to life.  Have you ever taken a science class in your life?

Geeze...


----------



## deltex1 (Jan 21, 2015)

hadit said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Siete said:
> ...


Fidel would rather breathe on Obabble's cucumber.


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez (Jan 21, 2015)

westwall said:


> No, THINKING people know it's a fraud because there is zero empirical data to support the "CO2 drives the global temp theory."  Period.  Everything you clowns cite is based on computer models.  EVERYTHING.  Come back when you actually have some real data.
> 
> You do know what "data" is...right?



*Since you're so sure you know what it is, why didn't you post any?
If the data is there to show CO2 does not cause the problem, it should be simple enough to find it.  *


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Jan 21, 2015)

hadit said:


> Siete said:
> 
> 
> > more co2
> ...



I wonder if these goofs got through the first grade...


----------



## DriftingSand (Jan 21, 2015)

No ... I think you're a fraud because I say so.


----------



## Conservative65 (Jan 21, 2015)

hadit said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


 
Don't count on it happening.  Liberals aren't willing to prove with actions what they claim.  It's the same with the bleeding hearts and social programs.  They're all about helping just with someone else's money.


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez (Jan 21, 2015)

deltex1 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



*Ah, of course.....DuhTex comes in with a homosexual reference.  Sorta' really Freudian.*


----------



## Siete (Jan 21, 2015)

worst co2 in the world ... China


----------



## theHawk (Jan 21, 2015)

hadit said:


> Siete said:
> 
> 
> > more co2
> ...



LOL, you beat me to it.

Another 'sciency' libtard goes down in flames.


----------



## westwall (Jan 21, 2015)

Siete said:


> CO2









That's mainly water vapor but don't let a little thing like a fact bother you.  And, it doesn't matter anyway.  CO2 FOLLOWS temperatures.  By hundreds of years.  Those are facts.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Jan 21, 2015)

Siete said:


> worst co2 in the world ... China



Co2 is Co2.. there isn't good and bad Co2...  and once again, what you see isn't Co2.


----------



## hadit (Jan 21, 2015)

Siete said:


> worst co2 in the world ... China



Apparently, you're talking, not listening.  Again, your picture does not depict CO2.[/QUOTE]


----------



## ChesBayJJ (Jan 21, 2015)




----------



## Siete (Jan 21, 2015)

westwall said:


> Siete said:
> 
> 
> > CO2
> ...









go to China and get some water vapor.


----------



## theHawk (Jan 21, 2015)

Billy000 said:


> I mean aside from skewed, non-peer-reviewed studies funded by oil companies, republicans are really the only ones saying it is a scam. The rest of the world laughs at them. I don't understand why they dont realize that. Republicans are either willfully ignorant on this issue or they are protecting the interests of big business. Why do you people listen to these corrupt douche bags?
> 
> RWs like to cite small studies that conflict with the findings of the 97% global consensus on this issue, but what they fail to realize is that they really don't understand how science works. Most of the studies that conflict with AGW are small in scope and not verified by independent researchers. Without independent verification, it is easy to skew the results of the studies and draw a fallacious conclusion.



We might take the idea of global warming seriously if there was evidence it was actually being caused by man.

Unfortunately for globalists lefties that want to use the issue for a political agenda, the fact is the planet has been warming naturally for over ten thousand years.  And there have been times in Earth's history that the temperature was much warmer than it is now, even to the point were there were no ice caps. 

Yet somehow Earth did just fine, so take your fear mongering and shove it.


----------



## hadit (Jan 21, 2015)

Siete said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Siete said:
> ...



That's smog.  Aren't you embarrassed that the "anti-science" crowd has to educate you on this?


----------



## Conservative65 (Jan 21, 2015)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Siete said:
> ...


 Social promotion


----------



## Conservative65 (Jan 21, 2015)

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> > hadit said:
> ...


 
Fidel would have to fight you off first.


----------



## cnm (Jan 21, 2015)

westwall said:


> Everything you clowns cite is based on computer models.  EVERYTHING.  Come back when you actually have some real data.
> 
> You do know what "data" is...right?


You mean where temperatures were predicted to rise because of greenhouse gases and then increasing temperatures were observed, that sort of data?


----------



## Siete (Jan 21, 2015)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Siete said:
> 
> 
> > worst co2 in the world ... China
> ...




duh, ya think ?  its the man made shit in the air ..., my reference to co2 was sarcastic, and the dolts bit, fangs gnashing.

Obama just filed an executive order for more smog.

freakin' idiots.


----------



## cnm (Jan 21, 2015)

hadit said:


> That's smog.  Aren't you embarrassed that the "anti-science" crowd has to educate you on this?


Here you go, then, CO2...


----------



## AmericanFirst (Jan 21, 2015)

Billy000 said:


> I mean aside from skewed, non-peer-reviewed studies funded by oil companies, republicans are really the only ones saying it is a scam. The rest of the world laughs at them. I don't understand why they dont realize that. Republicans are either willfully ignorant on this issue or they are protecting the interests of big business. Why do you people listen to these corrupt douche bags?
> 
> RWs like to cite small studies that conflict with the findings of the 97% global consensus on this issue, but what they fail to realize is that they really don't understand how science works. Most of the studies that conflict with AGW are small in scope and not verified by independent researchers. Without independent verification, it is easy to skew the results of the studies and draw a fallacious conclusion.


Kinda like you libtards listen to the unqualified corrupt douchebag Obutthurt.


----------



## hadit (Jan 21, 2015)

Siete said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> > Siete said:
> ...



Hey, you listened for a change!  Aren't you glad you did?  Now you know!


----------



## hadit (Jan 21, 2015)

cnm said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > That's smog.  Aren't you embarrassed that the "anti-science" crowd has to educate you on this?
> ...



Obviously.  One of the benefits of increased CO2 is faster plant growth.


----------



## AmericanFirst (Jan 21, 2015)

hadit said:


> Siete said:
> 
> 
> > more co2
> ...


Siete is a typical libtard, throwing lies around wanting people to think the lies are the truth.


----------



## AmericanFirst (Jan 21, 2015)

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > No, THINKING people know it's a fraud because there is zero empirical data to support the "CO2 drives the global temp theory."  Period.  Everything you clowns cite is based on computer models.  EVERYTHING.  Come back when you actually have some real data.
> ...


If libtards were smart they would realize how stupid they are.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Jan 21, 2015)

Billy000 said:


> I mean aside from skewed, non-peer-reviewed studies funded by oil companies, republicans are really the only ones saying it is a scam. The rest of the world laughs at them. I don't understand why they dont realize that. Republicans are either willfully ignorant on this issue or they are protecting the interests of big business. Why do you people listen to these corrupt douche bags?
> 
> RWs like to cite small studies that conflict with the findings of the 97% global consensus on this issue, but what they fail to realize is that they really don't understand how science works. Most of the studies that conflict with AGW are small in scope and not verified by independent researchers. Without independent verification, it is easy to skew the results of the studies and draw a fallacious conclusion.



I too am curious.  Are all of you mindless drone progressives/liberals "asking" such trite mindless bullshit "questions" because some hack Soros' appointee has directed you to do so?


----------



## cnm (Jan 21, 2015)

hadit said:


> Obviously.  One of the benefits of increased CO2 is faster plant growth.


Yes, warmth will make plants grow faster.


----------



## hadit (Jan 21, 2015)

cnm said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Obviously.  One of the benefits of increased CO2 is faster plant growth.
> ...



There's a reason why massive herbivorous dinosaurs flourished during warm periods in the earth's past.  Ice ages weren't such a great time for living things.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Jan 21, 2015)

hadit said:


> Siete said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Their entire mindset on this stuff is emotive.. remember the floating polar bear scam?

Its quite hilarious.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Jan 21, 2015)

I think the answer to the question in your headline is two-fold.

Yes, the right believes what the right tells them to believe, and 

2) They reject it because they hate Al Gore - and truth be told Al Gore tried to compare apples to oranges and also raced to some conclusions that the science doesn't support in "An Inconvenient Truth." So that gave the right the targets to attack.


----------



## cnm (Jan 21, 2015)

hadit said:


> There's a reason why massive herbivorous dinosaurs flourished during warm periods in the earth's past.  Ice ages weren't such a great time for living things.


High oxygen levels was what I read.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Jan 21, 2015)

nodoginnafight said:


> I think the answer to the question in your headline is two-fold.
> 
> Yes, the right believes what the right tells them to believe, and
> 
> 2) They reject it because they hate Al Gore - and truth be told Al Gore tried to compare apples to oranges and also raced to some conclusions that the science doesn't support in "An Inconvenient Truth." So that gave the right the targets to attack.



I don't hate Al Gore... I just like it better when he's not around spewing his nonsense.


----------



## cnm (Jan 21, 2015)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Their entire mindset on this stuff is emotive.. remember the floating polar bear scam?
> 
> Its quite hilarious.


Not as funny as the way data is ignored...







Data.GISS GISS Surface Temperature Analysis GISTEMP


----------



## BULLDOG (Jan 21, 2015)

westwall said:


> No, THINKING people know it's a fraud because there is zero empirical data to support the "CO2 drives the global temp theory."  Period.  Everything you clowns cite is based on computer models.  EVERYTHING.  Come back when you actually have some real data.
> 
> You do know what "data" is...right?



So what do you classify as "THINKING" people. Some goober listening to Hannity with no more climate education than they can get from watching the weather channel who claims to understand the data better than the experts? I'm sure some of them can think, but they just don't have the understanding that the experts do.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jan 21, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> Siete said:
> 
> 
> > CO2
> ...


If you exhale as much CO2 as those stacks, you need to see a doctor.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Jan 21, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Siete said:
> ...



LMAO....


----------



## westwall (Jan 21, 2015)

Siete said:


> more co2
> 
> 
> 
> ...









Yeah, from the 1970's!


----------



## BULLDOG (Jan 21, 2015)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> It's fraud because all the fraud that is behind it Billy Boy.  Tampered data, political agendas, etc... that's what makes it a fraud.  It isn't science, it's a political movement aimed at controlling people's behavior.



So you are saying that 97% of all legitimately recognized climate scientists.....world wide.......are in a massive conspiracy to spread false information?  Who is controlling this conspiracy, and why?


----------



## westwall (Jan 21, 2015)

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > No, THINKING people know it's a fraud because there is zero empirical data to support the "CO2 drives the global temp theory."  Period.  Everything you clowns cite is based on computer models.  EVERYTHING.  Come back when you actually have some real data.
> ...









The evidence is all around you moron.  But, once again for the factually challenged.  YOU have made a claim.  In science YOU are required to PROVE your claim.  YOU have claimed that CO2 is a problem.  That means YOU have to prove it.  All I have to do is show that there is nothing new, which sceptics have done repeatedly, and that is all we need do to discount your claim.

You lose.


----------



## westwall (Jan 21, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> > It's fraud because all the fraud that is behind it Billy Boy.  Tampered data, political agendas, etc... that's what makes it a fraud.  It isn't science, it's a political movement aimed at controlling people's behavior.
> ...








Yeah, all 74 of them.  Who owe their collective prosperity and professional reputations on the maintenance of the fraud.  Add to that the politicians who wish to tax the world to fund whatever BS they want to, and scumbag companies like Goldman Sachs who hope to rake off the hundreds of billions for doing nothing but shuffling paper and you have the motive to perpetuate the biggest fraud ever perpetrated.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Jan 21, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> > It's fraud because all the fraud that is behind it Billy Boy.  Tampered data, political agendas, etc... that's what makes it a fraud.  It isn't science, it's a political movement aimed at controlling people's behavior.
> ...



An exerpt from the Scientific American regarding the 97%:

_Rather, the climate debate is now ethical and political; it comes down to what Americans are willing to do today to address a problem that will largely affect their grandchildren. In this realm of moral choice, the 97 percent consensus can be polarizing, said Dan Kahan, a professor of psychology at Yale University.
_
The problem here is that science isn't based on _consensus_....  And from n OSS article:

_31,000 scientists reject global warming and say "no convincing evidence" that humans can or will cause global warming._

The other problem here is the 97% number is comprised of climatologists.. a group heavily invested in AGW.  Without AGW, what exactly does a climatologist do?  It's about as convincing as Al Sharpton ranting about racism.


----------



## westwall (Jan 21, 2015)

Siete said:


> worst co2 in the world ... China








Siete is a shining example of why the AGW cult is losing the war.  Everything this ignorant twat posts is a lie.  Everyone knows it and thus they also know that he is a liar of the first order.

Thank you for being such an absolute boob!


----------



## westwall (Jan 21, 2015)

cnm said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Obviously.  One of the benefits of increased CO2 is faster plant growth.
> ...








Yes.  Warmth combined with water and CO2 do indeed make plants grow better.  Warmer has ALWAYS been better than cold.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Jan 21, 2015)

westwall said:


> Siete said:
> 
> 
> > worst co2 in the world ... China
> ...



Well, in his defense.. he's probably actually bought into it.  Leftists seem to be very emotional and are easily led by emotional arguments that tug at the heartstrings... you know, drowning polar bears and whatnot.  But, sadly, it makes their imploring of you to look at the science a bit of a stretch.


----------



## Freewill (Jan 21, 2015)

No, is your answer.

Now I ask, do liberals believe with a belief as great as any religion that AGW is true because they just like to have power over people?


----------



## Siete (Jan 21, 2015)

westwall said:


> Siete said:
> 
> 
> > worst co2 in the world ... China
> ...



and thank you for being a DOLT. Some idiots don't understand sarcasm even when you explain it to them, ain't that right Brickwall?

LMAO


----------



## westwall (Jan 21, 2015)

Siete said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Siete said:
> ...







You couldn't use sarcasm if your life depended on it twerp.  My 8 year old daughter understands it and uses it far better than you ever will.  Get used to being a joke.


----------



## Siete (Jan 21, 2015)

westwall said:


> Siete said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...




got em going over here rightwinger ... global warming/obamagas, makes NO difference. Dolts will be dolts ...

LMAO


----------



## BULLDOG (Jan 21, 2015)

westwall said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Soggy in NOLA said:
> ...




Ok. I'll play along for a little while, but I've got a few questions. If you can give me reasonable answers, I'll apologize and admit you are the expert that convinced me.
1. If 97% of all recognized legitimate climate scientists add up to only 74 people that means there are only 77 (rounded up) of them in the world. Is that your claim?
2  Are you saying the 97% would lose their jobs if they didn't publicly agree that climate change is real and man is making it worse?

I have a few more, but lets go slow to be precise and avoid confusion.


----------



## OKTexas (Jan 21, 2015)

Billy000 said:


> I mean aside from skewed, non-peer-reviewed studies funded by oil companies, republicans are really the only ones saying it is a scam. The rest of the world laughs at them. I don't understand why they dont realize that. Republicans are either willfully ignorant on this issue or they are protecting the interests of big business. Why do you people listen to these corrupt douche bags?
> 
> RWs like to cite small studies that conflict with the findings of the 97% global consensus on this issue, but what they fail to realize is that they really don't understand how science works. Most of the studies that conflict with AGW are small in scope and not verified by independent researchers. Without independent verification, it is easy to skew the results of the studies and draw a fallacious conclusion.



Nope, the earths climate has been constantly changing from day one, only the arrogant left can think they can change that.


----------



## westwall (Jan 21, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...









The claim that 97% of the worlds scientists agree that AGW exists was promulgated from a survey that was sent out to thousands of scientists.  The writers of the survey culled out anyone who hadn't had a climatology paper published in "X" amount of years.  Then, they had another criteria which I no longer recall, that reduced it down to 79 climatologists who responded to a two question survey.

Out of that 79 person population only 74 actually agreed with the very poorly worded survey.  That's where the meme of the 97% comes from.

Then, Cook and Co. decided to double down on the 97% meme so they generated a new "paper" that supposedly supported it.

Here is a small extract of just one of the many essays that eviscerated Cooks paper.

*But even a quick scan of the paper reveals that this is not the case. Cook is able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” (quantification meaning 50 percent or more). The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming. [We fell from “97%” to 1.6% pretty fast]*

*Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it.*_ In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t._

The 8220 97 of climate scientists agree 8221 meme is 100 false A Blog for Dallas Area Catholics


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jan 21, 2015)

"I'm curious. Do RWs think AGW is a fraud simply because republicans told them it is?"

Most conservatives seek to discredit it as a consequence of their unwarranted fear that to address the problem will adversely effect their quality of life and standard of living – which, needless to say, is idiocy.


----------



## Siete (Jan 21, 2015)

For Pawlenty’s second claim -- that there is dispute about the causes of climate change -- we decided to look at the opinions of world scientists about the issue

A  2010 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences - the official publication of the United States National Academy of Sciences - found that out of 1,372 climate researchers surveyed, approximately 97 to 98 percent of those actively publishing in the field said they believe human beings are causing the climate change, which they term anthropogenic (i.e., man-made) climate change.  It also concluded that "the relative climate expertise and
scientiﬁc prominence" of the researchers unconvinced of man-made climate change are "substantially below that of the convinced researchers."

Based upon the preponderance of evidence we conclude that Tim Pawlenty’s claims are both incorrect and misleading to the public, who may not be familiar with the science behind climate change.  It is not "fair to say the science is in dispute," as if there are good arguments on both sides. Rather, there is significant scientific consensus that human beings are contributing to global warming. We rate his statement False


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 21, 2015)

Funniest part of the OP is linking Billy and "think"


----------



## Little-Acorn (Jan 21, 2015)

> *I'm curious.*


No, you're trolling.



> * Do RWs think AGW is a fraud simply because republicans told them it is?*


No.

They know it's a fraud, because the global-warming hysterics still haven't proven man has any influence on climate, or can do anything to change it in the future.

In fact, Manmade Global Warming has no factual backing whatsoever.

In truth, climates frequently change.

Sometimes the climate gets warmer.

And sometimes it gets colder.

That's been going on for as long as the planet has been orbiting the Sun. Or, as long as it's had a climate, at least.

And man has never had the slightest influence on it.

Even the leftist hysterics who scream about how we have to use government to change everything, force everyone to go back to the stone age, etc., to prevent some unknown catastrophe, have never been able to come up with even ONE study or example that backs up their claims.

What's funny is that, when they do name some study, it invariably turns out to be nothing but a bunch of long-winded claims which, finally, refer to some other "study" for proof. And what is in that other "study"? You guessed it - more long-winded claims, and eventually a reference to yet another study. And you can guess what is in that one, too.

The leftist global-whatever loons have been insisting on impending doom, and the urgent need to give government massive powers to change every bit of our lives to "avoid" that doom, for at least 40 years by my count. Literally billions of dollars have changed hands - usually into their hands - all over the world. And they still haven't come up with one shred of proof that man has had the least bit of influence on the climate changes that happen regularly around us. Nor is there any proof that man can do anything to change it.

***40 YEARS*** of screaming, caterwauling, and doomsaying. All without the slightest proof. Just references to references to references, ad infinitum. And demands that they be given complete power over all of us, to change what they cannot change.

Is this a record? 

But thanks for asking!


----------



## BULLDOG (Jan 21, 2015)

westwall said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Ok. Actually it would be only 93.6% who fell in that category if the numbers in your link are correct. I suspect other things might be wrong with that link as well. However, you did answer the question, and we'll go with that for now, even if I'm not convinced of that yet. You didn't answer my other question though. Do you believe those scientists would lose their jobs if they had another opinion? Exactly what do you think is being used to force them to say what they say, and why?


----------



## BULLDOG (Jan 21, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Funniest part of the OP is linking Billy and "think"



Oh great.......I need another stupid statement from you for my sig line. Say something .


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jan 21, 2015)

Billy000 said:


> I mean aside from skewed, non-peer-reviewed studies funded by oil companies, republicans are really the only ones saying it is a scam. The rest of the world laughs at them. I don't understand why they dont realize that. Republicans are either willfully ignorant on this issue or they are protecting the interests of big business. Why do you people listen to these corrupt douche bags?
> 
> RWs like to cite small studies that conflict with the findings of the 97% global consensus on this issue, but what they fail to realize is that they really don't understand how science works. Most of the studies that conflict with AGW are small in scope and not verified by independent researchers. Without independent verification, it is easy to skew the results of the studies and draw a fallacious conclusion.


I can't speak for right wingers but objective people realize that loud shouting and consensus are not scientific terms.
Objective laymen yield to experts regardless of numbers and the experts are split on the issue with the most heavily subsidized and propagated on the AGW side. The suspicion that reality raises puts the pragmatists on the side opposing AGW alarmism.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jan 21, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Funniest part of the OP is linking Billy and "think"


Never mind I found something.


----------



## westwall (Jan 21, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...









The overwhelming majority of funding for climatologists comes from taxpayers.  Politicians fund the grants that pay the climatologists.  If there is nothing to fear, then there is no money.  Do you see the motivation now?  

Then, to take it even further, the politicians wish to tax carbon to further fund their programs that keep getting them elected.  So they have a huuuuge incentive to pass legislation to further their political goals.  Add to that the scumbag companies like Goldman Sachs (who according to a Rolling Stone article, are responsible more than any other for the multiple balloon bust cycles we've been through) who will get to rake in hundreds of billions from a scheme like that and the motive becomes crystal clear.

As much as I don't like Big Oil....and i really don't, they do at least provide an essential product for the money we give them.  Goldman is set to make hundreds of billions for merely shuffling paper from one side of the room to the other.

The most recent IPCC report estimates the cost to change over society to a "renewable" energy system is 76 trillion dollars.  That's more than the GDP of the planet by several times.  And all along the way wealthy bankers, politicians, bureaucrats and companies who are friends of the politicians involved get to steal your money and the whole stated goal of all of this money redistribution is the lowering of global temperatures by ONE degree in 100 years.  Maybe.

Do you really think that a 76 trillion dollar investment, and the reordering of society, all so the super wealthy can become the ridiculously wealthy, with all of the attendant death and destruction that that will cause, is worth it?

Here's the link to the official UN report so you can't say I'm making it up.  Feel free to read it.

http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/wess_current/2011wess.pdf


----------



## BULLDOG (Jan 21, 2015)

westwall said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



While all that other stuff might be interesting to discuss, we were discussing climate scientists. Try to stay on subject as much as you can.
So you think the only climate scientists in that group are paid by the US government, and that funding will be cut off if they say anything different? What about the ones in other countries? There are lots of them. Does our government fund all the climate research in the world?


----------



## DriftingSand (Jan 21, 2015)

Conservative65 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



They just LOVE spending someone else's money.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jan 21, 2015)

It's a fraud because the temperatures aren't going up and haven't been for a while. Why do you think they changed the name to climate change?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 21, 2015)

What's more accurate this 1950 analog piece of shit technology


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 21, 2015)

Or this down to a tenth of a degree?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 21, 2015)

Do you really fucking think 120 years ago a guy reading a thermometer and recording it op is just as accurate as a computer print out from this?


----------



## westwall (Jan 21, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...








They're all inter-related though.  Can't discuss one without the other.  ALL climatologists get their money from taxpayers.  Some (like Mueller from BEST) get additional funding from corporate interests, or wealthy donors.  They produce nothing other than paper however.   Whether it be from the US or their own countries that is the simple reality.  To date the climatologists of the world have received over 100 billion dollars in funding.  Far outstripping the amount that Big Oil has spent on countering the fraud.
  And, more to the point the US gives grants to scientists all over the world.  Phil Jones of East Anglia fame has received millions of US taxpayer dollars over the years.


----------



## westwall (Jan 21, 2015)

bear513 said:


> Or this down to a tenth of a degree?








Back in the old days they measured in fahrenheit which is far more precise than celsius.  There are 180 gradations between boiling point and freezing in fahrenheit while there are just 100 on the celsius scale.

Add to that error bars, and yes, the old analog systems were more precise than the current digital celsius thermometers.


----------



## westwall (Jan 21, 2015)

bear513 said:


> Do you really fucking think 120 years ago a guy reading a thermometer and recording it op is just as accurate as a computer print out from this?









Depends on who was doing the measuring, and who is doing the programming now doesn't it.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 21, 2015)

westwall said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Do you really fucking think 120 years ago a guy reading a thermometer and recording it op is just as accurate as a computer print out from this?
> ...


 Thermocouples dont lie


----------



## Wyatt earp (Jan 21, 2015)

Post pictures of a few , when I start my shift in a few hours, plus you have to be ISO certified to be a 2nd tier company, ours is calibrated/verified by a outside source


----------



## BULLDOG (Jan 21, 2015)

westwall said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Sorry, but I don't see what Goldman Sachs, oil companies, or the cost to completely change the entire country to an alternate energy source has to do with our discussion. I'm aware that right wingers have trouble staying on subject, but please try.
   Your claim was that there are only 74 climate scientists who support climate change, and now you are bringing up a lot more. I found over 200 science organizations who have put out statements agreeing with it. There are thousands of credible scientists represented by these organizations. These are not just some ex employees of each group, but the official statements by the most recognized scientific groups in the world. Are you saying all those groups and the thousands of scientists represented by those groups are all funded by the US government, and they would cease to exist as organizations or that the individual scientists would all lose their jobs if they said differently? If  the US government isn't funding and controlling all those groups, who do you think is forcing them to put out statements that you imply are obviously false statements?  Who exactly do you think is in charge of this massive conspiracy to defraud the public?


----------



## Billy000 (Jan 21, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


He's gonna want a link. Shut him down with it.


----------



## Nyvin (Jan 21, 2015)

The Senate just voted overwhelmingly that Climate Change is NOT a hoax


----------



## westwall (Jan 21, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...








You can shove your condescension up your ass silly person.  If you're too blind to see what has been patiently laid out for you then so be it.  You can waste your time all you wish.  Not mine.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jan 21, 2015)

westwall said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Or this down to a tenth of a degree?
> ...




Wow....If you think a simple conversion from Celsius to Fahrenheit introduces error, you need to get a 5th grader to do the measurement for you, and 1/1000 of a degree is not a problem for digital industrial thermometers. You won't find them on the shelf at Walmart though


----------



## westwall (Jan 21, 2015)

bear513 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...








No, they don't intentionally, they're inanimate after all.  But they do suffer from calibration drift all the time.  Go ahead look it up.


----------



## blackhawk (Jan 21, 2015)

westwall said:


> No, THINKING people know it's a fraud because there is zero empirical data to support the "CO2 drives the global temp theory."  Period.  Everything you clowns cite is based on computer models.  EVERYTHING.  Come back when you actually have some real data.
> 
> You do know what "data" is...right?


No they think it's a character from Star Trek the next generation.


----------



## westwall (Jan 21, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...








That's not what I said at all.  What did I really say or are you as incapable of telling the truth as you are with having a legitimate conversation?


----------



## BULLDOG (Jan 21, 2015)

Billy000 said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Not yet. I want to be fair and give him every chance to present his viewpoint. I was serious. I'm open to the possibility I could be wrong. I just haven't seen the evidence for that.


----------



## westwall (Jan 21, 2015)

Nyvin said:


> The Senate just voted overwhelmingly that Climate Change is NOT a hoax








As soon as the scientific method mentions "voting" as on of it's precepts, I'll give a shit what politicians have to say.


----------



## Billy000 (Jan 21, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Christ there's no way you are wrong.


----------



## westwall (Jan 21, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...







Your condescension belies that statement.  There is plenty of evidence out there that counters the AGW theory.  I suggest you look at something other than the AGW supporters.  You have a one sided view of the world and are woefully ignorant of the facts.


----------



## westwall (Jan 21, 2015)

Billy000 said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Billy000 said:
> ...







well, you're consistent with your religious nuttery.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jan 21, 2015)

westwall said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Billy000 said:
> ...


Ok. I might have been a little short with you when you kept trying to change the subject, but I really am willing to consider legitimate reasonable evidence. I am inclined to believe what I understand to be the majority of experts. If they are not the majority, or they are distributing false information, I want to know. If you have that information, I would gladly accept it with reasonable reason. I don't see where it helps anybody for me to be wrong.....especially me.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jan 21, 2015)

westwall said:


> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Not sure what religion has to do with it, but OK. Does this mean you no longer care to back up your statements about man made climate change?


----------



## Vandalshandle (Jan 21, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Billy000 said:
> ...



Silly rabbit! Why would anyone think that 7 billion tons of greenhouse gasses released every year should have any negative impact on our atmosphere and climate?

Every year almost 7 billion tons of carbon dioxide is released into the a - Pastebin.com


----------



## westwall (Jan 21, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Billy000 said:
> ...








I have.  _*You*_ haven't.


----------



## westwall (Jan 21, 2015)

Vandalshandle said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...







Sillier wabbit.  The atmosphere weighs QUADRILLIONS OF TONS.  You think a tiny amount of CO2 is going to have an effect on that?  You're smoking some good dope to think that!


----------



## Vandalshandle (Jan 21, 2015)

Whatever, WW. Your mind is every bit as open as Fox News, so I am sure that you have carefully considered every "fair and balanced" point of view.


----------



## westwall (Jan 21, 2015)

Vandalshandle said:


> Whatever, WW. Your mind is every bit as open as Fox News, so I am sure that you have carefully considered every "fair and balanced" point of view.







Funny that you claim yours is.  You are every bit as closed minded as you claim I am.  The difference is I have a PhD in geology and have studied the Earth Sciences for decades, so actually have a grounding in what is being discussed.  Further I started out as a firm supporter of the theory when it was first promulgated.  However, as a scientist I realize that when empirical data doesn't support your theory, you change the theory.....not the data!

Climatology has violated every principle of the scientific method and have revealed themselves to be the modern day Lyshenkoists.


----------



## Billy000 (Jan 21, 2015)

westwall said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


He's been pretty civil with you. You should at least appreciate it.


----------



## emilynghiem (Jan 21, 2015)

On the flip side, do liberals OPPOSE the idea of buying land in order to preserve the environment, endangered wildlife and ecosystems because it comes across as too conservative?

Is the idea of focusing on cleaning up the oceans, stopping pollution and waste,
and preserving/restoring nature NOT appealing, because it would unite people
and can't be turned into some political hot potato to slam conservatives?


----------



## Billy000 (Jan 21, 2015)

westwall said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > Whatever, WW. Your mind is every bit as open as Fox News, so I am sure that you have carefully considered every "fair and balanced" point of view.
> ...


Dude your black and white perspective on climatology makes me seriously question what you say about your professional background. When a real scientist questions conclusions, he makes a balanced viewpoint about it. He acknowledges their evidence but explains why he ultimately doesn't buy their conclusions. It is far from easy to publish a peer reviewed study. How do you explain that the vast majority of them support the theory that humans have caused climate change? The only explanation you have given is that they are part of some grand  political conspiracy. That's just laughable.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jan 21, 2015)

westwall said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


I'm sorry. Which claims have I made that you want me to backup. I was completely honest when I said I know I could be wrong, and if you could clear up some reasonable questions I have, I am perfectly OK with changing my beliefs. I have no desire to be wrong if you can answer a few reasonable questions with a few reasonable answers. If that's more than you can handle, for what ever reason, I have no reason to believe the right wing claims. At least until someone can answer my  questions.


----------



## westwall (Jan 22, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...










Here you go.  A new peer reviewed paper that shows, yet again, that the GCM's used by climatologists are less than useless.  They bear no semblance to reality and as usual the paper will be ignored by the "faithful".  The usual MO is to attack the authors and then the Journal for printing the paper, all the while ignoring the facts presented.


"A major peer-reviewed climate physics paper in the first issue (January 2015: vol. 60 no. 1) of the prestigious _Science Bulletin_ (formerly _Chinese Science Bulletin_), the journal of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, exposes elementary but serious errors in the general-circulation models relied on by the UN's climate panel, the IPCC. The errors were the reason for concern about Man's effect on climate. Without them, there is no climate crisis."


"The paper, Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model, by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, Willie Soon, David Legates and Matt Briggs, survived three rounds of tough peer review in which two of the reviewers had at first opposed the paper on the ground that it questioned the IPCC's predictions.

When the paper's four authors first tested the finished model's global-warming predictions against those of the complex computer models and against observed real-world temperature change, their simple model was closer to the measured rate of global warming than all the projections of the complex "general-circulation" models"



Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-01-peer-reviewed-pocket-calculator-climate-exposes-errors.html#jCp


----------



## IanC (Jan 22, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



if you are serious about being open minded about the science of global warming/climate change then the first thing you must do is realize that the claimed certainty of AGW is massively exaggerated. many climate scientists (especially the highly recognisable ones) act more like defense attorneys than bend over backwards to be honest scientists (see Feynman's Caltech Commencement speech 'Cargo Cult'). 

Pick an area, any area, and the reality is different than you read in the headlines and much less 'certain'. be careful to examine answers to difficult questions because they are often speeches to questions never asked. make sure you expose yourself to both viewpoints, otherwise you will not know if you are missing out important pieces of the puzzle. 

be careful not to caricaturize either the skeptics or the warmists. both sides agree on the basics. warming since the LIA, CO2 must cause at least some warming, mankind has increased CO2. the squabbles arise over the catastrophic predictions and what constitutes good science.


----------



## Conservative65 (Jan 22, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Siete said:
> ...



You global warming nuts can either do it one at a time or all at once.  I don't care as long as you all do it.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 22, 2015)

westwall said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > Whatever, WW. Your mind is every bit as open as Fox News, so I am sure that you have carefully considered every "fair and balanced" point of view.
> ...


So, you have this Phd in Geology, and so do all the people that I study under. And they are say that AGW is very real and causing us trouble already. As do the statements of the American Geophyical Union, the Geological Society of America, and the American Meteorlogical Society.

Now who to believe, an anonymous poster on the internet, or real scientists that I can call by name, and all  the Scientific Societies on this planet?


----------



## hadit (Jan 22, 2015)

westwall said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > Or this down to a tenth of a degree?
> ...



Precision and accuracy are different things.  If today's thermometers are more accurate than yesterday's, how can we confidently say global temperatures have risen by fractions of a degree? Just wondering.


----------



## westwall (Jan 22, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...









I don't care what you say.   Your own posts have exposed you for the liar that you are.  You claim to be older than I am yet you claimed in a post that your first job was minimum wage paying 2.18 an hour.  That would put you younger than me by almost 20 years.  There are MANY posts you have made that conflict with your "history".  The one thing I do believe about you.  You do work for EVRAZ, and you are maybe 50 years old.  You aren't going to college, and if you do have any college in your background it was a AA degree, maybe. 

As far as who to believe?  I don't care about that either.  Appeals to authority are logic fails, so feel free to trot them out anytime you wish.  All it does is show the world that you have nothing.


----------



## westwall (Jan 22, 2015)

hadit said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...







I agree.  They are two different things.  However, the thermometers of old were very accurate.  The old thermometer under the tongue is STILL more accurate than the digitals they use today.  Ask almost any doctor if you don't believe me.  The reason why we have gone digital is mercury is toxic and no one wants to handle it if they don't have to.  But the best of the old mercury thermometers are more accurate than the best digital thermocouples are today.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 22, 2015)

Well, it is not fractions of a degree in some very important areas. Such as the Polar areas.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 22, 2015)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


LOL. No, I have never said that my first job was a minimum wage job. It was 2.18 an hour, however. I have never worked at a minimum wage job in my life. And I am 71 years old, still working full time as a millwright in a steel mill, and attending a university. And the highest class I have attended was a 470/570 Eng. Geo. class, that required special permission, which I obtained because I was working on a project that involved that subject at the time. 

And, Walleyes, it is not me that is calling all the other Geologists and Geo-physicists frauds, it is you. If you really had evidence for what you state here, you would present it at the meeting of one of the Scientific Societies that you claim membership in. In fact, not mere membership, but even claiming to be a Fellow in the Royal Society. 

So, what is you excuse for not presenting such evidence where it would count, instead of an internet board, with few qualified to counter your bullshit?


----------



## Vandalshandle (Jan 22, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Rocks,

You are arguing with a "STOP" sign. If Gore said it was true, it is a lie. Fox says so, so that is where the debate ends.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jan 22, 2015)

westwall said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


I thought I was clear. I know I'm not educated enough to evaluate individual papers on climate science, any more than I am educated enough to evaluate a paper on physics or electronics, even though I have some training in the latter two.  I also know the vast majority of people are not any more qualified than me. Presenting me with papers with opposing positions to evaluate is nothing more than confusing the issue. The only reasonable choice for me and most others is to determine who is more credible and then to accept the judgment of the majority of those credible experts . I won't be sucked into choosing between two opposing opinions on the basis of which political party supports them. My simple, reasonable questions were only to help me determine credibility.  Until I have reason to believe another source is at least as credible as what I now believe to be true, opposing opinions sound like so much crap.  If you aren't qualified or don't care to answer a few reasonable questions about what you are obviously adamant about, then say so and don't waste my time or yours.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jan 22, 2015)

IanC said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



So, if I am serious about being open minded, the first thing I need to do is change my mind? You do realize that particular statement is nuts, don't you?  How about you giving me some reason to believe your point of view? Neither you, nor I are qualified to evaluate the scientific evidence with the same accuracy as an expert, so charts,  and graphs, and yearly measurements are nothing more than pretending to be smarter than we are. Why don't you explain to me why so many experts would believe it exists if it doesn't?


----------



## westwall (Jan 22, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...







Sure you are.  You've been stuck at 71 for quite a while now.


----------



## westwall (Jan 22, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...







You are smart enough to understand when the scientific method is being violated.  Look up the scientific method, then look at how the climatologists violate every principle laid out in the scientific method at every turn.  It's truly as simple as that.  That was what changed my mind.  I follow the scientific method as my code.  Those who violate it are not scientists, they are political operatives, and nothing more.


----------



## westwall (Jan 22, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> IanC said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...







If your mind is truly open then just look at the arguments from ALL sides.  Look at websites from both camps.  READ what they all say.  You are smart enough that you can figure out what makes sense.  Anyone who claims you have to be a climatologist to understand what they produce is lying to you.  Climatology is a soft science.  I don't know what level of education you have, but if you are even mildly conversant with scientific matters you can understand everything they have to say.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jan 22, 2015)

westwall said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Ok. That is along the lines of what I am trying to find out. The scientific method is pretty much strait forward. How exactly was it violated, and why did all major scientific groups in the world not catch such a violation?


----------



## westwall (Jan 22, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...








Ignore the scientific organizations.  If you want to learn something you have to first abandon the appeals to authority.  The authorities also told us the world was flat, that the world was the center of the universe, that plate tectonics didn't exist etc.  The authorities are almost always wrong.  Science is SCEPTICISM!  It is sceptics who shift the paradigm thinking of the experts that moves the world forward. 

Lets' start with the basics.  I will first address the fundamental theory of AGW.  Namely CO2 "traps" heat in the atmosphere and backradiates it to the ground.  Longwave IR (which is what we're talking about) is the supposed instrument of this "effect".  The theory states that IR radiation bounces back down to the Earth and rewarms it.  Your homework is to read how the planet is warmed in the first place.  Does the dirt keep the planet warm, or do the oceans?  Which is the primary heat sink?


----------



## BULLDOG (Jan 22, 2015)

westwall said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


I already had a junior high school Earth Science class, but  there is no way you can give me a credible education on climate science in a little discussion board. As I said, I will rely on the majority of credible scientists in the field. There are many thousands of those around the world, and the vast majority seam to broadly agree on this one subject. Why should I doubt their credibility?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 22, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


well first, in the true scientific method, there is something called an experiment to prove a hypothesis.  Ask one of these gents/ladies for the experiment that proves adding 120 PPM of CO2 actually does anything to temperatures.  You won't get one. There was one done in 1901 by a scientist named Herr Koch.  he proved it didn't.  Now, having that, do you supposed someone would prove that wrong in order to make the claim today?  ahhhhh, no, they haven't.  In fact, in order for any observed data to match the supposed models that are being used as the experiment, they have to adjust the raw data to make the observed data fit the models.  Really!!!


----------



## westwall (Jan 22, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...










The field itself lacks credibility thanks to the ethical failings of those involved.  That's the point.  Once again, if you are going to thoughtlessly appeal to authority, then you truly have no interest in the learning about the subject and I can do naught but wish you well and enjoy your day.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jan 22, 2015)

jc456 said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



For about the millionth time. I'm not interested in charts, graphs, or some experiment that happened more than a century ago. I, like most people, am not educated enough in that field to look at a few charts and declare every major scientific organization from around the world who has made a statement on climate change is wrong. Only an imbecile would do something like that. I have a few simple, reasonable questions as to why I should not believe the vast majority of scientists in the field. It's about their earned credibility as opposed to their distractors. Not their methods. If you can help me with that, then great. Otherwise, you are only wasting my time and yours. My request is not unreasonable.


----------



## westwall (Jan 22, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...







OK, in a nutshell.  IR radiation is supposed to warm the planet by being re radiated to Earth.  The problem with the theory is the oceans are the heat sinks of the world.  It has taken BILLIONS of years for the UV radiation from the Sun (capable of penetrating approximately 200 meters) to warm the oceans to their current level.  

The oceans are what maintain the temperature of the planet.  The theory of IR back radiation fails its first test when it is shown that IR radiation can only penetrate MICRONS deep into the oceans.  That's it.  I don't care how much CO2 you put into the atmosphere, the atmosphere is not the engine that maintains the global temperature.  It is the oceans, which is why Kevin Trenberths email

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

Is so telling.  The AGW crowd have spent the last 5 years trying to rationalize that simple statement away.  That is the ultimate failure of AGW science.  All the rest has been your supposedly "credible" sources obfuscating, and burying, any and all questions that pertain to that simple statement in direct violation of the scientific method.

It's as simple as that.  They are _not _credible.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jan 22, 2015)

westwall said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



You are correct. I have no interest in spending the time and effort required to become an expert in the field. I will also point out that the vast majority of climate change deniers have yet to do that either. Obviously, the majority of deniers aren't any more capable than I of an informed disagreement with the general consensus in the climate change community. You can't, or won't answer why I should not believe the vast recognized majority in the field. The only reasonable conclusion is that Hannity said not to believe in man made climate change, so you don't.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jan 22, 2015)

westwall said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



Again, NOT INTERESTED IN BECOMING A CLIMATE SCIENTIST. If you have some information on who is doing it, or why all those thousands of scientists are being either forced or bribed to support information that obviously most would know to be false, I could be easily convinced. I was very clear on that point from the start.


----------



## westwall (Jan 22, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...







It's not THOUSANDS of climate scientists.  That's the point!  It's a small minority that are driving this shit and they've been called the "climate mafia" for years.  You are witnessing the collapse of their world and they are fighting tooth and nail to prevent it.  They RELY on the fact that you think you can't understand, when anyone with a brain can figure it out.

Good day.


----------



## elektra (Jan 22, 2015)

No, we understand its a fraud simply because the IPCC was caught playing politics and falsifying data in order to make the AGW theories work.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jan 22, 2015)

westwall said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Ok. That is finally getting to the point of the questions I asked at first and have continued to ask throughout our conversation. Here is a list of  scientific bodies of national or international standing, and  surveys of opinion among climate scientists, individual scientists, universities, and laboratories which contribute to the overall scientific opinion. They all say global climate change is real, and man is affecting it
Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
That is a pretty impressive list. and the organizations do collectively represent thousands. I can't find a similar list that is nearly as  impressive or that represents nearly as many accredited scientists for the opposition. Why is that?


----------



## westwall (Jan 22, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...









First off science isn't about OPINION.  Science concerns itself with FACTS.  When those organizations present facts, instead of opinions, let me know.  Till then their OPINIONS are meaningless.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 22, 2015)

Walleyes, they have presented facts for years now at the AGU Conferances in San Francisco. If you have facts to counter their evidence, why are you not presenting those facts there? After all, you claim to be a member of the AGU with a Phd in Geology. So, when you are ready to present some of those facts, here or there, have at it. Until then, your nonsense is no better than that of Elektra or Crusader Frank.


----------



## Wyld Kard (Jan 22, 2015)

Billy000 said:


> I mean aside from skewed, non-peer-reviewed studies funded by oil companies, republicans are really the only ones saying it is a scam. The rest of the world laughs at them. I don't understand why they dont realize that. Republicans are either willfully ignorant on this issue or they are protecting the interests of big business. Why do you people listen to these corrupt douche bags?
> 
> RWs like to cite small studies that conflict with the findings of the 97% global consensus on this issue, but what they fail to realize is that they really don't understand how science works. Most of the studies that conflict with AGW are small in scope and not verified by independent researchers. Without independent verification, it is easy to skew the results of the studies and draw a fallacious conclusion.





> republicans are really the only ones saying it is a scam.


  Really?  The ONLY ones, huh?  That's a load of bullshit! 

Someone doesn't have to be a RW to know and understand that AGW is a scam, dumbass.


----------



## Kosh (Jan 22, 2015)

Climate Change is something that is natural and has happened for millions of years. Long before Human have been on this planet.

AGW is a hoax designed and hijacked by the far left to subjugate the people to the government.


----------



## westwall (Jan 22, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Walleyes, they have presented facts for years now at the AGU Conferances in San Francisco. If you have facts to counter their evidence, why are you not presenting those facts there? After all, you claim to be a member of the AGU with a Phd in Geology. So, when you are ready to present some of those facts, here or there, have at it. Until then, your nonsense is no better than that of Elektra or Crusader Frank.









No, they haven't.  They have presented OPINION and computer generated fiction.  There are precious few facts in anything they present.


----------



## westwall (Jan 22, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Walleyes, they have presented facts for years now at the AGU Conferances in San Francisco. If you have facts to counter their evidence, why are you not presenting those facts there? After all, you claim to be a member of the AGU with a Phd in Geology. So, when you are ready to present some of those facts, here or there, have at it. Until then, your nonsense is no better than that of Elektra or Crusader Frank.








I already did.  You're just too stupid to understand them.  UV is able to penetrate deep enough into the oceans to warm them.  The oceans are the heat sink that stabilizes this planet.  IR can only penetrate a few microns.  How is IR going to warm the oceans when it can't penetrate deep enough to do so?

Riddle us that batman.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 22, 2015)

*Sat tracking of ultraviolet light shows increase since 1979 Watts Up With That 

UV exposure has increased over the last 30 years, but stabilized since the mid-1990s*




The high latitudes of the southern hemisphere have seen ultraviolet exposure increase by as much as a quarter. The low latitudes have seen little increase, and the mid-and-high latitudes of the northern hemisphere have seen about a five percent increase. Though the size of UV wavelengths ranges from 290 to 400 nanometers, 305 nanometer UV is one of the most damaging wavelengths for humans. Credit: NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center/Jay Herman

*From NASA Goddard press release* *here*

NASA scientists analyzing 30 years of satellite data have found that the amount of ultraviolet (UV) radiation reaching Earth’s surface has increased markedly over the last three decades. Most of the increase has occurred in the mid-and-high latitudes, and there’s been little or no increase in tropical regions.

The new analysis shows, for example, that at one line of latitude — 32.5 degrees — a line that runs through central Texas in the northern hemisphere and the country of Uruguay in the southern hemisphere, 305 nanometer UV levels have gone up by some 6 percent on average since 1979.

The primary culprit: decreasing levels of stratospheric ozone, a colorless gas that acts as Earth’s natural sunscreen by shielding the surface from damaging UV radiation.

The finding reinforces previous observations that show UV levels are stabilizing after countries began signing an international treaty that limited the emissions of ozone-depleting gases in 1987. The study also shows that increased cloudiness in the southern hemisphere over the 30-year period has impacted UV.

*Marvelous. Debunking your arguement with an article from WUWT. 

So, since the mid-90's the amount of UV reaching the earth's surface has decreased. Yet it continues to warm. Ah well, nice try, no brass ring.*


----------



## westwall (Jan 22, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> *Sat tracking of ultraviolet light shows increase since 1979 Watts Up With That
> 
> UV exposure has increased over the last 30 years, but stabilized since the mid-1990s*
> 
> ...









Ummmm, that doesn't address the underlying theory of how this global warming is supposed to happen..  Care to address that bucko?


----------



## Old Rocks (Jan 22, 2015)

Well, let us present how the physicists address it.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

No sense in re-inventing the wheel.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal_1.pdf

Summary. The global temperature rose by 0.20C between the middle 1960's and
1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is
consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of
atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar
luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend
of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming
should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the
century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980's. Potential effects on
climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North
America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West
Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the
fabled Northwest Passage.

..................................................................................................................................
The greenhouse theory can be tested by examination of several planets, which provide an ensemble of experiments over a wide range of conditions. The atmospheric composition of Mars, Earth, and Venus lead to mean radiating levels of about 1, 6, and 70 km, and lapse rates of F 50o, 5.50, and 7°C km-, respectively. Observed surface temperatures of these planets confirm the existence and order of magnitude of the
predicted greenhouse effect (Eq. 3). Data now being collected by spacecraft at Venus and Mars (12) will permit more precise analyses of radiative and dynamical
mechanisms that affect greenhouse warming.

*Dr. James Hansen is probably the most respected atmospheric physicist on earth at present.

James Edward Hansen (born March 29, 1941) is an American adjunct professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University. Hansen is best known for his research in the field of climatology, his testimony on climate change to congressional committees in 1988 that helped raise broad awareness of global warming, and his advocacy of action to avoid dangerous climate change. In recent years, Hansen has become an activist for action to mitigate the effects of climate change, which on a few occasions has led to his arrest.

After graduate school, Hansen continued his work with radiative transfer models, attempting to understand the Venusian atmosphere. Later he applied and refined these models to understand the Earth's atmosphere, in particular, the effects that aerosols and trace gases have on Earth's climate. Hansen's development and use of global climate models has contributed to the further understanding of the Earth's climate. In 2009 his first book, Storms of My Grandchildren, was published.[1] In 2012 he presented a 2012 TED Talk: Why I must speak out about climate change.[2]

From 1981 to 2013, he was the head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City, a part of the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland.

He currently directs the Program on Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions at Columbia University's Earth Institute.[3] The program is working to continue to "connect the dots" from advancing basic climate science to promoting public awareness to advocating policy actions.

James Edward Hansen



Born March 29, 1941 (age 73)
Denison, Iowa, U.S.
Fields Atmospheric physics
Institutions Columbia University
Alma mater University of Iowa
Thesis The atmosphere of Venus : a dust insulation model (1967)
Known for Radiative transfer, Planetary atmospheres,
Climate models
Influences James Van Allen
Notable awards Klopsteg Memorial Award (2011)
United States National Academy of Sciences
Carl-Gustaf Rossby Research Medal


*


----------



## mamooth (Jan 22, 2015)

Westwall, you just said the IR gets absorbed. Hence it warms the oceans. So where's the problem? Conservation of energy may not be denied. If the energy passes into the oceans, it warms the oceans. 

You seem to be implying that the energy in the IR vanishes after it strikes the oceans. If that's not your claim, please tell us where you think the IR energy goes after it penetrates the ocean. It's actually somewhat of a complicated situation, but I'd like to see how far you've thought this through before I go further, and which particular bad science you're latching on to.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 22, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> *Sat tracking of ultraviolet light shows increase since 1979 Watts Up With That
> 
> UV exposure has increased over the last 30 years, but stabilized since the mid-1990s*
> 
> ...



So how does it magically warm the oceans down at 700M?

Do you ever tire of just making shit up?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 22, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Westwall, you just said the IR gets absorbed. Hence it warms the oceans. So where's the problem? Conservation of energy may not be denied. If the energy passes into the oceans, it warms the oceans.
> 
> You seem to be implying that the energy in the IR vanishes after it strikes the oceans. If that's not your claim, please tell us where you think the IR energy goes after it penetrates the ocean. It's actually somewhat of a complicated situation, but I'd like to see how far you've thought this through before I go further, and which particular bad science you're latching on to.



Can you show us in a lab how a 120PPM increase in CO2 does that?


----------



## mamooth (Jan 22, 2015)

Frank, shush. The grownups are trying to talk.

The next thing to consider in how the heat balance of the oceans work ... the oceans are warm. Their average temp may be icy, but the icewater is down deep. The surface layers are usually warmer than the atmosphere above, meaning the oceans heat the air.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jan 22, 2015)

westwall said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...




So that's what it comes down to. There are no climate scientists whose judgment can be trusted,  and the thousands who agree with global climate change are all charlatans. Sure thing buddy. I didn't expect a rational answer to my questions anyway, but I did give you a fair chance. Keep that tinfoil hat tight, and you should be OK  at least until the FEMA prisons are opened.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 22, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Frank, shush. The grownups are trying to talk.
> 
> The next thing to consider in how the heat balance of the oceans work ... the oceans are warm. Their average temp may be icy, but the icewater is down deep. The surface layers are usually warmer than the atmosphere above, meaning the oceans heat the air.



Translation: We have no science


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 22, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Frank, shush. The grownups are trying to talk.
> 
> The next thing to consider in how the heat balance of the oceans work ... the oceans are warm. Their average temp may be icy, but the icewater is down deep. The surface layers are usually warmer than the atmosphere above, meaning the oceans heat the air.



Wait. I thought your stupid "Theory" was the atmosphere was heating the deep ocean....which is it?


----------



## westwall (Jan 22, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Well, let us present how the physicists address it.
> 
> The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
> 
> ...









And you are STILL not addressing the facts I presented.  Pull your head out of your ass and present something.  This is the same tired old bullshit that doesn't address the facts of this theory and how it has failed.

GET WITH IT SILLY PERSON!


----------



## westwall (Jan 22, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Westwall, you just said the IR gets absorbed. Hence it warms the oceans. So where's the problem? Conservation of energy may not be denied. If the energy passes into the oceans, it warms the oceans.
> 
> You seem to be implying that the energy in the IR vanishes after it strikes the oceans. If that's not your claim, please tell us where you think the IR energy goes after it penetrates the ocean. It's actually somewhat of a complicated situation, but I'd like to see how far you've thought this through before I go further, and which particular bad science you're latching on to.









Can you not read?  I said the "THEORY" is that IR is absorbed by the atmosphere and re radiated to the ground.  The whole planet knows that the ground does not retain heat.  Go to the desert at night and you can experience how fast the dirt loses heat.  The whole world likewise KNOWS that the sunlight enters the oceans, the UV radiation penetrates up to 1000 meters in extraordinary conditions, but normally to a depth of 200 meters and THAT is the mechanism of ocean warming.  This is KNOWN.  It is not OPINION, it is not CONSENSUS....it is a FACT!

It is also a "fact" that the supposed architect of AGW is long wave radiation.   The problem with that is the simple well known fact that IR can only penetrate microns deep into water.  Thus the entire mechanism or AGW collapses under simple, well known facts.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 22, 2015)

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Well, let us present how the physicists address it.
> ...



They NEVER address facts!

Climategate should have ended the Cult, but they carry on as if it was never revealed that they alter data to fit their theory.

They've never once addressed any facts and never can and never will


----------



## westwall (Jan 22, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Frank, shush. The grownups are trying to talk.
> 
> The next thing to consider in how the heat balance of the oceans work ... the oceans are warm. Their average temp may be icy, but the icewater is down deep. The surface layers are usually warmer than the atmosphere above, meaning the oceans heat the air.







Wow, you actually got something correct for once.  So....how does IR heat the oceans when we KNOW that that is physically impossible?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 22, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Frank, shush. The grownups are trying to talk.
> 
> The next thing to consider in how the heat balance of the oceans work ... the oceans are warm. Their average temp may be icy, but the icewater is down deep. The surface layers are usually warmer than the atmosphere above, meaning the oceans heat the air.



So heat transfers from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer ocean surface?


----------



## westwall (Jan 22, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...








Piss off you ignorant twat.  You are exactly the type of dipshit that Gruber and company rely on.  You are simply worthless.


----------



## westwall (Jan 22, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Frank, shush. The grownups are trying to talk.
> ...







*BINGO!*


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 22, 2015)

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > No, THINKING people know it's a fraud because there is zero empirical data to support the "CO2 drives the global temp theory."  Period.  Everything you clowns cite is based on computer models.  EVERYTHING.  Come back when you actually have some real data.
> ...





Siete said:


> worst co2 in the world ... China



Let me help you moron...   SMOG is the culmination of SMoke and fOG.  Its primarily water vapor with particulate matter.  Let me guess, you believe Phil Nye and the alarmist drivel/lies taught in our failing liberal school system..  I hope all millennial's are not as ignorant as you are..


----------



## westwall (Jan 22, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...







There's too much money to be had and too much power to be collected in the hands of the politicians for them to give up.  They will lose in the end thanks to the internet because now every time they say something it can be reviewed and summarily destroyed.  I love the comments sections of the magazines and papers (those that still allow them that is) the responses are overwhelmingly against the AGW fraudsters.  Prior to Climategate it was 60 40 against them, now it is over 90 percent against them. 

It is a joy to behold!


----------



## BULLDOG (Jan 22, 2015)

westwall said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


I'm not the one who couldn't answer a few simple reasonable questions. You never even addressed the question of why all those scientists are supporting what you claim is false information. Another conspiracy?


----------



## BULLDOG (Jan 22, 2015)

westwall said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



The increase is because fox stirred up the nutbags.  They all have that one magical chart that disproves all  the work  that legitimate climate scientists have produced over the last several years. At least they think they do.


----------



## westwall (Jan 22, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...









Your questions are not "reasonable" silly person.  You will always resort to logic fails to say "see I told you so" when you are telling no one nothing but what a silly person you are.  As I said, your just another in a long line of useless drones.


----------



## westwall (Jan 22, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...







  Sure it is!  It couldn't possibly be because it is a complete and total fraud with no empirical data to support a single assertion they have made.  Oh nooooo it couldn't be anything like that.  What a moron....


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 22, 2015)

westwall said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



They don't care, either


----------



## BULLDOG (Jan 22, 2015)

westwall said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...




So, I guess that means you have no idea who the mythical people are who are supposed to  be supporting climate change for some nefarious reason, or why they might be doing it, but you know it's true anyway. Just another conspiracy theory nut.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jan 22, 2015)

westwall said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...




Again.....who is perpetrating the fraud, and why?


----------



## westwall (Jan 22, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...









What's amazing is they can even think they are relevant anymore.  No one of any kind of brain power believes anything they say anymore.  They are met with universal derision and mockery.


----------



## westwall (Jan 22, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...






It's been laid out for you in this very thread, go read.


----------



## westwall (Jan 22, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...






It's in this thread go read.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jan 22, 2015)

westwall said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



No it hasn't. The best you came up with was there are only 79 climate scientists in the world, and the US government will fire 74 of them if they say differently. That's nuts.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 22, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Nope...  Its called empirical evidence not failed models..

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






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

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

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

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






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

Good old Earth has shown the left wing nutbags liars..


----------



## BULLDOG (Jan 22, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



And when did you become such an advanced expert on climatology?  About the time fox started to whine about it?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 22, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



Have you read the Obama EO on scientific integrity?  it outright states he will fire people for "not believing" or "showing any negative work"..  Obama hides the science because it can not be defended in the real world.  No conspiracy here just plain old facts.. In the words of the EPA chief "dissent of global warming will not be tolerated". Its 100% political agenda.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 22, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



Aww poor little lib cant even muster up one cognitive thought or one shred of proof to prove its assertion.   I just posted FACTS.  Now refute them, if you can...   moron.


----------



## westwall (Jan 22, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...







What, you didn't bother to read the IPCC link I gave you?  What is the saying whenever nefarious affairs are being investigated... what is that saying again?  Oh yeah FOLLOW THE MONEY!  The IPCC link I gave you showed you the motive for all of this....76 TRILLION dollars.  Yep, there's no possible way that shitty scientists would collude with corrupt politicians and big business to cook the books to ensure they get their cut of that.

Hmm mmm.  Nope, no way.  76 TRILLION dollars isn't enough,...  What a buffoon.


----------



## westwall (Jan 22, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...









Well, a lowly statistician destroyed the last major climatology paper in a couple of days, so he is clearly a better expert on climatology than they are....


----------



## BULLDOG (Jan 22, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Quit being so silly. I know it's hard for you to believe, but the thousands of scientists around the world, as well as every major scientific organization in the world don't all work for Obama dumbass.  He can't fire them even if he wanted to.  Yours  is just another crazy conspiracy theory  like bigfoot and the manufactured Benghazi scandal.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 22, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...




AH yes... The appeal to authority when facts say the authorities are DEAD WRONG!

The only dumbass is you.. pull your head out of your ass and realize this scam has been in the works for over 60 years. It began as "Sustainable Development  or UN  Agenda 21.  IT's always been about the destruction of the US and it Constitution.  They just got a bunch of left wit morons to believe the lies..  Its changed its name over the years but its still the same..  now quit being a fucktard..


----------



## BULLDOG (Jan 22, 2015)

westwall said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...




So thousands of unpaid scientists are in collusion with 120 different governments to defraud the public.
here is a quote from this link Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Thousands of scientists and other experts contribute (on a voluntary basis, without payment from the IPCC)[8] to writing and reviewing reports, which are then reviewed by governments. IPCC reports contain a "Summary for Policymakers", which is subject to line-by-line approval by delegates from all participating governments. Typically this involves the governments of more than 120 countries.[9]

This has to be at least as big as than Bigfoot.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 22, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



WIKI is NOT  a reliable source for anything... Follow the dam money you fool!


----------



## BULLDOG (Jan 22, 2015)

westwall said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...



That's still not an answer to the question I asked BillyBob.


----------



## westwall (Jan 22, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...







What unpaid scientists are you speaking of?  Show me one please.  So far they have received collectively over 120 BILLION dollars in the last 20 years.  What exactly has all that money gotten us?  For a gauge it took nuclear physicists three years and 32 BILLION (in equivalent dollars) to create an atomic weapon and the foundation for nuclear power, and....... oh yeah......end WWII.   In 20 years and for the paltry sum of 120 BILLION dollars climatologists have given us nothing but "maybe".

Let us know when you pull your head out of rectal defilade and you actually want to learn something.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jan 22, 2015)

Billy_Bob said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Billy_Bob said:
> ...


Agenda 21?   We're in full conspiracy theory mode now, aren't we.


----------



## westwall (Jan 22, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...







No, it demonstrates that your question to Billy Bob was as pointless as you are.


----------



## elektra (Jan 22, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Yet, there is not one name of scientist in your link? How come?


----------



## BULLDOG (Jan 22, 2015)

westwall said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Don't care what the IPCC received. They don't conduct any research, and they don't pay for any reports they receive from thousands of researchers..


----------



## BULLDOG (Jan 22, 2015)

westwall said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Well, it could be that, or perhaps  billybob didn't want to admit that he was one of the nutbags that fox stirred up so he went and found a couple of charts so he could pretend he knew what he was talking about, or it could be that you are just so spiteful till you wanted to jump in on my conversation with him.


----------



## westwall (Jan 22, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...







They don't?  Really?  Wow, you really don't know anything do you.  You're dismissed.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jan 22, 2015)

elektra said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



I didn't write the article. I just posted a link to it. Are you implying that the organizations listed are just fake names, and they don't represent real people? Generally scientific organizations have actual people they represent. Is this something you doubt?


----------



## BULLDOG (Jan 22, 2015)

westwall said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Now this is the kind of thing I was asking questions to find out. The IPCC website says they do no research and all the papers they use are donated.
IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
If you have proof of them conducting research or paying for reports, that would be a reason to mistrust their claims. You got any of that?


----------



## elektra (Jan 22, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


No, I am implying you are another idiot who can not produce names of real scientists who claim man is causing global warming.

Further you can not even prove your "list", is of scientific organizations.  

I should change my user name to "Scientist Ekektra".

Just to impress you.


----------



## westwall (Jan 22, 2015)

He's trolling now.  Remember the rules...


----------



## BULLDOG (Jan 22, 2015)

elektra said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...


Well no, I didn't visit each of the organizations on the list to see what was going on there, and I didn't get a list of their members, but they all sounded sciency. I just found the link. Are you saying there is a conspiracy to make up fake organizations that support climate change? This thing is worse than I thought. If I did go to the trouble to find a list of individual people's names, I suspect you would claim they were made up names.


----------



## elektra (Jan 22, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


You won't post names cause I will say you made them up?

Call me Elektra Science, get the point, just cause I call myself a mouse, that don't make me a mouse.

Do all those organizations conduct science? 

You do not know but you post the link as if they are valid scientists. 

I bet the first in the list has zero scientists,  just a hunch. 

I may look tomorrow,  today I would bet my life that the first in the list has zero people doing science.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jan 22, 2015)

elektra said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > elektra said:
> ...


Ok. You looked at the list and saw IPCC was the first one. Big deal. Are you trying to say that isn't a list of credible sources?


----------



## westwall (Jan 23, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...








Knock yourself out.....  This is what the IPCC passes for science....  They're a joke.


*UN climate change panel based claims on student dissertation and magazine article *
*The United Nations' expert panel on climate change based claims about ice disappearing from the world's mountain tops on a student's dissertation and an article in a mountaineering magazine. *
*
*
UN climate change panel based claims on student dissertation and magazine article - Telegraph


*The scandal deepens – IPCC AR4 riddled with non peer reviewed WWF papers

A small selection of the opinion pieces used in the "report".




Hansen, L.J., J.L. Biringer and J.R. Hoffmann, 2003: Buying Time: A User’s Manual for Building Resistance and Resilience to Climate Change in Natural Systems. WWF Climate Change Program, Berlin, 246 pp.

http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/climate_change/our_solutions/business_industry/climate_savers/ index.cfm 

Lechtenbohmer, S., V. Grimm, D. Mitze, S. Thomas, M. Wissner, 2005: Target 2020: Policies and measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the EU. WWF European Policy Office, Wuppertal

Malcolm, J.R., C. Liu, L. Miller, T. Allnut and L. Hansen, Eds., 2002a: Habitats at Risk: Global Warming and Species Loss in Globally Significant Terrestrial Ecosystems. WWF World Wide Fund for Nature, Gland, 40 pp.

Rowell, A. and P.F. Moore, 2000: Global Review of Forest Fires. WWF/IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 66 pp. http://www.iucn.org/themes/fcp/publications /files/global_review_forest_fires.pdf

WWF, 2004: Deforestation threatens the cradle of reef diversity. World Wide Fund for Nature, 2 December 2004. http://www.wwf.org/
WWF, 2004: Living Planet Report 2004. WWF- World Wide Fund for Nature (formerly World Wildlife Fund), Gland, Switzerland, 44 pp.
WWF (World Wildlife Fund), 2005: An overview of glaciers, glacier retreat, and subsequent impacts in Nepal, India and China. World Wildlife Fund, Nepal Programme, 79 pp.

Zarsky, L. and K. Gallagher, 2003: Searching for the Holy Grail? Making FDI Work for Sustainable Development. Analytical Paper, World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Switzerland
Finally, there are these authoritative sources cited by the IPCC – publications with names such as Leisure and Event Management:


Jones, B. and D. Scott, 2007: Implications of climate change to Ontario’s provincial parks. Leisure, (in press)
Jones, B., D. Scott and H. Abi Khaled, 2006: Implications of climate change for outdoor event planning: a case study of three special events in Canada’s National Capital region. Event Management, 10, 63-76
The scandal deepens 8211 IPCC AR4 riddled with non peer reviewed WWF papers Watts Up With That 
*

This week, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is releasing its latest report, the “Working Group II Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report.” Like its past reports, this one predicts apocalyptic consequences if mankind fails to give the UN the power to tax and regulate fossil fuels and subsidize and mandate the use of alternative fuels. But happily, an international group of scientists I have been privileged to work with has conducted an independent review of IPCC’s past and new reports, along with the climate science they deliberately exclude or misrepresent.

Our group, called the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), was founded in 2003 by a distinguished atmospheric physicist, S. Fred Singer, and has produced five hefty reports to date, the latest being released today (March 31).

So how do the IPCC and NIPCC reports differ? The final draft of the IPCC’s Summary for Policymakers identifies eight “reasons for concern” which media reports say will remain the focus of the final report. The NIPCC reports address each point too, also summarizing their authors’ positions in Summaries for Policymakers. This provides a convenient way to compare and contrast the reports’ findings.

Here’s what the reports say:

_IPCC: “Risk of death, injury, and disrupted livelihoods in low-lying coastal zones and small island developing states, due to sea-level rise, coastal flooding, and storm surges.”_

NIPCC: “Flood frequency and severity in many areas of the world were higher historically during the Little Ice Age and other cool eras than during the twentieth century. Climate change ranks well below other contributors, such as dikes and levee construction, to increased flooding.”

_IPCC: “Risk of food insecurity linked to warming, drought, and precipitation variability, particularly for poorer populations.”_

NIPCC: “There is little or no risk of increasing food insecurity due to global warming or rising atmospheric CO2 levels. Farmers and others who depend on rural livelihoods for income are benefitting from rising agricultural productivity throughout the world, including in parts of Asia and Africa where the need for increased food supplies is most critical. Rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels play a key role in the realization of such benefits.

_IPCC: “Risk of severe harm for large urban populations due to inland flooding.”_

NIPCC: “No changes in precipitation patterns, snow, monsoons, or river flows that might be considered harmful to human well-being or plants or wildlife have been observed that could be attributed to rising CO2 levels. What changes have been observed tend to be beneficial.”

_IPCC: “Risk of loss of rural livelihoods and income due to insufficient access to drinking and irrigation water and reduced agricultural productivity, particularly for farmers and pastoralists with minimal capital in semi-arid regions.”_

NIPCC: “Higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations benefit plant growth-promoting microorganisms that help land plants overcome drought conditions, a potentially negative aspect of future climate change. Continued atmospheric CO2 enrichment should prove to be a huge benefit to plants by directly enhancing their growth rates and water use efficiencies.”

The IPCC s Latest Report Deliberately Excludes And Misrepresents Important Climate Science - Forbes

U.S. GAO - International Climate Change Assessments Federal Agencies Should Improve Reporting and Oversight of U.S. Funding


----------



## BULLDOG (Jan 23, 2015)

westwall said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



This is an answer to the some of questions I had before. I'm not sure why you got so nasty for a while, but I will respond in the same manner I am addressed. It's late, but I'll look at what you have tomorrow.


----------



## Kosh (Jan 23, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



Yes we know the AGW cult like the far left cult must adhere to religious scripture and they would much rather watch the world burn than admit they are wrong!


----------



## IanC (Jan 23, 2015)

Bulldog-   I assume you never checked out 'cargo cult'. here is a video of it being spoken, unfortunately not in a Far Rockaway accent.

clip of a Feynman lecture on the scientific principals-

and and part of an interview he did before passing away. here he tries to express how difficult it is to answer questions to someone without the commensurate scientific knowledge and culture to understand the explanation. hahahaha, the same way I feel when Crick cannot grok the reason why you cannot simply append instrumental data onto a proxy series.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 23, 2015)

Old Rocks said:


> Walleyes, they have presented facts for years now at the AGU Conferances in San Francisco. If you have facts to counter their evidence, why are you not presenting those facts there? After all, you claim to be a member of the AGU with a Phd in Geology. So, when you are ready to present some of those facts, here or there, have at it. Until then, your nonsense is no better than that of Elektra or Crusader Frank.


 dude, then present the experiment and show them there facts you boast about.  Come on man 12 flippin months on here and you sir have yet to present that one little fact.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 23, 2015)

Wildcard said:


> Billy000 said:
> 
> 
> > I mean aside from skewed, non-peer-reviewed studies funded by oil companies, republicans are really the only ones saying it is a scam. The rest of the world laughs at them. I don't understand why they dont realize that. Republicans are either willfully ignorant on this issue or they are protecting the interests of big business. Why do you people listen to these corrupt douche bags?
> ...


 those lefty liberals hate....HATE conservatives, they wish we would all die.  Ask them!  they hate having to deal with us.  Reasons why?  We represent an opposing view to which they feel no one is allowed.  Ask them.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 23, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Frank, shush. The grownups are trying to talk.
> 
> The next thing to consider in how the heat balance of the oceans work ... the oceans are warm. Their average temp may be icy, but the icewater is down deep. The surface layers are usually warmer than the atmosphere above, meaning the oceans heat the air.


 He's merely asking you for the experiment that you stated months and months ago that exists.  If you are a grown up, then you should be able to comply!


----------



## jc456 (Jan 23, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


seems funny, if you are truly here to extrapolate answers to why there is global warming, you came in with a presupposed view of it and are unwilling to do the littlest of tasks on your own.  Hmmm, seems you only wish to parrot what you heard instead of learning.  You're acting like every other true blue liberal on here.  hey, you ignore what the other view is without doing any research.  Yeah, go with it, just do it away from here.  If you are unwilling to do the work your posts aren't worth the reading. bye


----------



## jc456 (Jan 23, 2015)

westwall said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


 but he doesn't know because he isn't looking for answers.  he is unwilling to do any personal work to learn the issue.  Instead hops on a message board and thumps his chest like he does.  It doesn't get any better than reading his useless drivel and see him admit his lazy arse isn't going to expend the energy to research.  he is probably 30% of the population on the left that do just what he does.  I watched it on a video back early last year.  Hilarious video. Some dipshit blonde gal arguing about AGW and when asked what research she'd done, she  hadn't done zip.  yet here she is protesting.  I don't know but this dude on here is a second version of that stupid blonde gal.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 23, 2015)

jc456 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Frank, shush. The grownups are trying to talk.
> ...



And that's the last we'll hear from Admiral mamooth in this thread


----------



## jc456 (Jan 23, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


 well that is the third or fourth time you used fox in your posts.  Seems you have an issue with fox.  go have that fight with them and stop being a scared brat who knows nothing of what he speaks.  go for it, and dude, ask one of those scientists you believe are telling you the truth, for the experiment that 120 PPM of CO2 does anything to temperatures.  Go on now. scurry away.  I love when the left is afraid of fox broadcasting.  Love it.  It points to their agenda immediately.  you sir have won my nomination for the most stupid poster of the week.  Please, if you stay here, note that all you will be posting is more stupid.  You've been consistent with that.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 23, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


 thanks Frank!!!!


----------



## mamooth (Jan 23, 2015)

jc, frank, no public circle jerks, please. We already know you're both cult cowards who constantly lie about the science and run for the hills. No need to confirm that point yet another time. You will always be my little bitches, and everyone will always laugh at you because of that.

Now, back to westwall, who will at least try science.  And then fail badly at it, but at least he tries.



			
				Westwall said:
			
		

> Can you not read?



I'm being thorough. Given your slippery nature, it's important to pin you down to a position at the start.



> I said the "THEORY" is that IR is absorbed by the atmosphere and re radiated to the ground.



You mean those documented measurements that anyone with the right instrument can do at any time. If that's  a theory, then sunlight is also a theory.



> The whole planet knows that the ground does not retain heat. Go to the desert at night and you can experience how fast the dirt loses heat. The whole world likewise KNOWS that the sunlight enters the oceans, the UV radiation penetrates up to 1000 meters in extraordinary conditions, but normally to a depth of 200 meters and THAT is the mechanism of ocean warming. This is KNOWN. It is not OPINION, it is not CONSENSUS....it is a FACT!



Sort of. UV is a tiny portion of sunlight. Visible light has most of the energy. 90% of the energy in sunlight is absorbed in the first 10 meters of the oceans. That's the first part of the mechanism of ocean warming.



> It is also a "fact" that the supposed architect of AGW is long wave radiation. The problem with that is the simple well known fact that IR can only penetrate microns deep into water. Thus the entire mechanism or AGW collapses under simple, well known facts.



And ... you blow it. You fail to explain how "doesn't penetrate deeply" leads to "can't warm the ocean". You just waved your hands around and declared it must be so.

Now, back in sensible-land, the IR is absorbed by the ocean. Therefore, it heats the ocean. Period. The energy doesn't vanish. It heats the ocean, then the ocean heats the air. The theory is fine. Your rather peculiar interpretation of the theory, alas, has some issues.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jan 23, 2015)

jc456 said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Of course I have an opinion. How many people do you know that doesn't?  The constant claim is that all the supporters of global warming are being paid off. With such a claim, there should be some evidence. I haven't seen that yet. I don't know any more about the technicalities of climate science than the people parroting fox charts. and it's obvious they don't have the education to know what those few charts mean in light of all the other information available.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jan 23, 2015)

jc456 said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



Please list the research you have done......your personal measurements, equipment used, locations, educational level to show you actually know how to do the research......you know, the things required  to claim that you have actually done climate research.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 23, 2015)

mamooth said:


> jc, frank, no public circle jerks, please. We already know you're both cult cowards who constantly lie about the science and run for the hills. No need to confirm that point yet another time. You will always be my little bitches, and everyone will always laugh at you because of that.
> 
> Now, back to westwall, who will at least try science.  And then fail badly at it, but at least he tries.
> 
> ...



Blah blah blahblah

and still no lab work


----------



## BULLDOG (Jan 23, 2015)

jc456 said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Is that all you got? 120ppm of CO2? Is that your magic key to disprove years and years of legitimate research? Idiot


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 23, 2015)

*Do RWs think AGW is a fraud simply because republicans told them it is?*

How much has the planet warmed over the last 100 years because of  natural factors?
How much has the planet warmed over the last 100 years because of AGW factors?
List the factors and how much of the warming they caused.
Show your work.
How much will your solution cost (in terms of $ and GDP)?
How much will that cost reduce the particular AGW factor?
How much will that factor reduce temperatures in 2080?
Show your work.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 23, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


I don't recall asking or stating anything about your opinion.  I stated that you were a lazy parroting left liberal who is unwilling to do research.  Not sure how that gets me to stating you aren't allowed to have an opinion.  So, since you are nothing but a useless parrot on a message board you can leave us to our discussions with those willing to do research.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 23, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


yep!!  You got it? oh wait, no, cause you're TOO  ....... L  A  Z  Y


----------



## jc456 (Jan 23, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Do RWs think AGW is a fraud simply because republicans told them it is?*
> 
> How much has the planet warmed over the last 100 years because of  natural factors?
> How much has the planet warmed over the last 100 years because of AGW factors?
> ...


ha, you're asking for this lazy tort to really do that?  Nope, he's lazy and just wishes to waste our time with Polly want a GW?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 23, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



LOL

You don't even know your own stupid Cult Theory!!!!!!

Your cult claims that the incremental addition of 120PPM of CO2 to the atmosphere over the past 150 years is causing an increase in temperature and reduction in ocean pH.

All we're asking is if you have any lab work showing how an instantaneous addition of 120PPM of CO2 in a closed system can do ANY of that

Go back to drooling on yourself now


----------



## jc456 (Jan 23, 2015)

mamooth said:


> jc, frank, no public circle jerks, please. We already know you're both cult cowards who constantly lie about the science and run for the hills. No need to confirm that point yet another time. You will always be my little bitches, and everyone will always laugh at you because of that.
> 
> Now, back to westwall, who will at least try science.  And then fail badly at it, but at least he tries.
> 
> ...


hey loser, I don't need to do any science.  I expect it to be completed.  See you and yours constantly telling me and my peers about all of this consensus crap, so all I ask for is the experiment that actually verifies your claim.  Now personally, I don't see why you can't just provide that experiment or simply state you ain't got it.  Nothing more.  So, more stupid, you got it?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 23, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


----------



## BULLDOG (Jan 23, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > jc, frank, no public circle jerks, please. We already know you're both cult cowards who constantly lie about the science and run for the hills. No need to confirm that point yet another time. You will always be my little bitches, and everyone will always laugh at you because of that.
> ...



Perhaps if you presented the lab work that you have done, and the documentation, it would lend you a little credibility, and you wouldn't sound so much like an idiot trying to horn in on a conversation that you are clearly not qualified to interrupt.


----------



## mamooth (Jan 23, 2015)

westwall said:


> So far they have received collectively over 120 BILLION dollars in the last 20 years.



Precisely who got 120 billion dollars?

Where did you get that figure?

Name names. Show the documentation. Support your claim. You can support it, right?


----------



## rdean (Jan 23, 2015)

westwall said:


> No, THINKING people know it's a fraud because there is zero empirical data to support the "CO2 drives the global temp theory."  Period.  Everything you clowns cite is based on computer models.  EVERYTHING.  Come back when you actually have some real data.
> 
> You do know what "data" is...right?


Computer models?  You mean the kind those non thinking scientific clowns designed?  Got it!


----------



## jc456 (Jan 23, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


 hey Polly, 1901 Herr Koch go find it!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 23, 2015)

rdean said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > No, THINKING people know it's a fraud because there is zero empirical data to support the "CO2 drives the global temp theory."  Period.  Everything you clowns cite is based on computer models.  EVERYTHING.  Come back when you actually have some real data.
> ...


 
Those clown models didn't predict the last 15 years very well, did they?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 23, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


 qualify?  QUALIFY?  You used that word on here where you are a Polly Parrot?  Qualify?   

And btw, I gave you our experiment, now give us yours!!! Mr. Qualify


----------



## jc456 (Jan 23, 2015)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > So far they have received collectively over 120 BILLION dollars in the last 20 years.
> ...


 hey, more stupid, you certainly are a demanding little stupid.  Just provide the experiment heir stup!


----------



## BULLDOG (Jan 23, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Do RWs think AGW is a fraud simply because republicans told them it is?*
> 
> How much has the planet warmed over the last 100 years because of  natural factors?
> How much has the planet warmed over the last 100 years because of AGW factors?
> ...




Do all the instant experts whose only education in climate science started with a report on fox and their entire course of study includes a few oil company funded web sites and talk radio have enough knowledge to discredit legitimate scientists?
What does cost have to do with whether something is real or not?

Show your work idiot. Idiot.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 23, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory!
It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory!
It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory!
It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory!
It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory!
It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory!
It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory!
It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory!

It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory!
It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory!
It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory!
It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory!

It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory!
It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory!
It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory!
It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory!


It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory!
It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory!
It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory!
It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory!
It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory!
It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory!
It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory!
It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory!

It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory!
It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory!
It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory!
It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory!


It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory!
It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory!

It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory!
It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory! It's YOUR stupid theory!


----------



## jc456 (Jan 23, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Do RWs think AGW is a fraud simply because republicans told them it is?*
> ...


 again, why must you post the most stupid stuff here?  Let's see your credentials to even post something like this troll!  Oh wait,  you're just trolling, and you have nothing to submit for the thread.  don't go away mad, just go away, you add absolutely nothing to the forum.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jan 23, 2015)

jc456 said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


You are correct. You used the word "view" , and I unfortunately took to mean the same thing as opinion. Please explain the difference. When do you think this silly discussion board became a repository of physical science research results?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 23, 2015)

My theory is that these changes are natural and further CO2 lags temperature.

Prove it's not


----------



## jc456 (Jan 23, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


 s0n, you ain't worth any more time!


----------



## jc456 (Jan 23, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> My theory is that these changes are natural and further CO2 lags temperature.
> 
> Prove it's not


 Frank, he isn't worth anymore time.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jan 23, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



You are correct. I'm not a scientist, and neither are you. Thorough evaluation of any one test in relationship to all the other information is beyond both of us, so I need other information to convince me.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 23, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Do RWs think AGW is a fraud simply because republicans told them it is?*
> ...


 
*What does cost have to do with whether something is real or not?*

Something can be real and not worth spending tens of trillions to "fix". Idiot.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jan 23, 2015)

jc456 said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



So that would be the famous Koch/jc456 experiment right? Is that the research you have done, cause this is the first research that you have been responsible for that I have heard of.


----------



## westwall (Jan 23, 2015)

mamooth said:


> jc, frank, no public circle jerks, please. We already know you're both cult cowards who constantly lie about the science and run for the hills. No need to confirm that point yet another time. You will always be my little bitches, and everyone will always laugh at you because of that.
> 
> Now, back to westwall, who will at least try science.  And then fail badly at it, but at least he tries.
> 
> ...








What measurements?  The ones that are so fine the instruments supposedly making them are not capable of that level of precision so the "readings" are actually computer generated?  Those "measurements"?


Here's the reality of the ARGO floats and the models that you clowns are constantly trying to alter reality to match...










Talk about lack of knowledge...  Sheesh.  Yes UV is a small percentage of total light output it is however the dominant light that reaches into the oceans.  It is also far more energetic and thus imparts more energy (which means heat for you nucular watch officers) into the water.


"If our diver wore ultraviolet (UV)-viewing goggles, almost half the light she would see looking down and horizontally would be UV. Light passing through water also becomes polarized, which means its wave motion vibrates in only one direction, or plane. (This also happens to the light reflected as glare from the sea surface or a wet road.) If our diver wore sunglasses that blocked vertically polarized light and looked to her side, her view would be dark; but if she looked up or down, her view would be full of light. The polarized sunglasses would block light vibrating in the horizontal plane, while allowing light vibrating in the vertical plane to pass through."

Shedding Light on Light in the Ocean Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution


----------



## BULLDOG (Jan 23, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You are absolutely right, but the claim was that it isn't real. Cost, and whether it is worthwhile can be discussed by reasonable people, but the discussion here is whether it is real. I suspect the people in opposition to scientists views are more concerned about the cost, but they are trying to pretend it isn't real so they don't have to discuss the cost.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 23, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



Knee Grow, Please!!!

That's a low-brow bullshit, escapist answer.

You have a theory, the main portion of which is certainly testable in a lab, but you can never show us the lab work

Was odd the first 5 years I've been asking for it, but now it's clear your side is scamming us


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 23, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


 
*but the discussion here is whether it is real.*

You may have missed my questions.

How much has the planet warmed over the last 100 years because of natural factors?
How much has the planet warmed over the last 100 years because of AGW factors?
List the factors and how much of the warming they caused.

*I suspect the people in opposition to scientists views are more concerned about the cost*

And the people who believe in AGW aren't concerned about the cost. Got it.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 23, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


 and not worth spending one dime on!


----------



## westwall (Jan 23, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...








That's yours.  Supposedly the world is going to end if we reach 400 ppm.  Well guess what we'll be there next year.  Then they'll tell us that the world will end when it hits 425 ppm, which we'll hit.  Then they'll shift the goal posts yet again.  

That's all they do, tell us the world is going to end, and then when that time comes and go's (as it has on at least 6 different occasions so far) they issue a new lie and pat themselves on the back saying look how smart we are because morons never bother to review what they said before.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jan 23, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


Call it what you like, but it is the only honest answer I have. If you were truthful, it would be yours as well. You are not a climate scientist,  and it's silly for you to try to act like one.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 23, 2015)

westwall said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...


 I like those how hop on here and claim to know nothing about science calling those here that are, like yourself and todd, idiots.  That is just too special. Warrants a more stupid award of some kind.


----------



## westwall (Jan 23, 2015)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > So far they have received collectively over 120 BILLION dollars in the last 20 years.
> ...









Here's some.  There's loads more and if I had days to spend I would be all over it.  As I have a life you can go look for yourself.


----------



## westwall (Jan 23, 2015)

rdean said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > No, THINKING people know it's a fraud because there is zero empirical data to support the "CO2 drives the global temp theory."  Period.  Everything you clowns cite is based on computer models.  EVERYTHING.  Come back when you actually have some real data.
> ...








Yes, those computer models that can't recreate the weather we had yesterday with perfect knowledge of all the variables and you seem to think that those models and model producers can generate a meaningful prediction for something 100 years in the future.  Your lack of critical thinking while astonishing, is also quite laughable.


----------



## westwall (Jan 23, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Do RWs think AGW is a fraud simply because republicans told them it is?*
> ...









I find it amusing that you are the only one referencing FOX.  We are referencing peer reviewed papers and scientific organizations in our rebuttals and you are the only person in this discussion referencing FOX.  Why is that?  You claim to be "open minded" when you arrogant, ignorant posts expose you for the progressive asshat you truly are.

An open mind terrifies you.  Someone who actually understands basic science (and surprise surprise in a Ivy League survey of AGW supporters and sceptics, it was the sceptics who scored higher on the scientific aptitude portion of the survey ((that means we're smarter than you)) is miles ahead of you.  You claim to want to learn but you then compound your utter failure by stating you are too lazy to review actual scientific matters and instead want to merely bandy words in an endless round of mental masturbation.

Well screw you.  You're nothing more than troll, like all the other AGW trolls.  I only engage in conversations with people.


----------



## westwall (Jan 23, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> My theory is that these changes are natural and further CO2 lags temperature.
> 
> Prove it's not








No Frank.  That is not a theory.  That is a fact.  It needs no opinion or consensus.  It just "IS".


----------



## BULLDOG (Jan 23, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I didn't miss those questions because they are immaterial to me. As I have said all along, I am not a climate scientist and wouldn't have any idea what that bit of information would mean in relationship to all the other data out there. You aren't a climate scientist either, even though you are adamantly opposed to what formally educated scientists say. I will not be convinced either way by someone whose goal seems to be more politically based than fact based. This whole discussion started with me asking a couple of simple questions about who is funding the supposed conspiracy to foist false climate information on the public, and why they are supposedly doing it. Nobody has even tried to answer those questions preferring to change the subject in widely different directions. My questions are still the same, and all the subterfuge from people who seem to be upset by my questions won't change the subject.


----------



## westwall (Jan 23, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...









That's rich.  The troll calling other peoples honesty into question.  You're the untruthful one here jerk.


----------



## westwall (Jan 23, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...








No, they don't matter to you because you are intellectually dishonest and merely wish to engage in mental masturbation.  You don't want to learn anything at all.  You're a troll.  Nothing more.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 23, 2015)

westwall said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...


 can I call it the most stupid post of the day?


----------



## BULLDOG (Jan 23, 2015)

westwall said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > jc456 said:
> ...



No that is not my research. I've been as clear as I know how to be. I don't know why you don't understand. I'm not discussing the validity of any research by either faction. I AM NOT A SCIENTIST AND I AM NOT QUALIFIED TO EVALUATE RESULTS BY EITHER SIDE. THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE PUBLIC IS NO MORE QUALIFIED THAN I AM. Your continuous, insistence to present off subject information looks more like a dodge of the question than any reasonable answer to my reasonable questions. If you want to flame me for that, then go for it. If you want to present more silly graphs, charts, or even doodles from your scratch pad, that's fine too, but I haven't received anything anywhere close to an answer. Obviously the right can't answer any questions other than to repeat crap from oil company funded sites or talk radio. Far from a convincing argument, or an answer to reasonable questions


----------



## mamooth (Jan 23, 2015)

westwall said:


> Here's some. There's loads more and if I had days to spend I would be all over it.  As I have a life you can go look for yourself.



So, your denier liar source took every penny allocated to weather, climate, public health, the environment, and so on, and called it the climate change budget. Weather satellites? Weather radars? Weather forecasting? EPA cleaning up pollution? National Parks? Energy research? You just toss it all together, and hope nobody looks.

That is, you fudged the statistics hard. And even though everyone knows it's a crap figure, you'll keep quoting $120 billion. You can't take it back, as a complete inability to admit error is kind of your trademark.



>


----------



## westwall (Jan 23, 2015)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Here's some. There's loads more and if I had days to spend I would be all over it.  As I have a life you can go look for yourself.
> ...








No you lying sack of poo, those are the specific requests for climate research ONLY!  Go ahead and actually do some work instead of riding others coat tails you lazy fuck, and go do the research yourself!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 23, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


 
* You aren't a climate scientist either, even though you are adamantly opposed to what formally educated scientists say.*

If they say we should spend trillions on less reliable "green" energy and that we should shackle our economy because supposedly those actions would reduce the temperature in 2080 by some unknowable (and tiny) amount, damn right I'm opposed.

Now, if they would say we should massively expand the number of our nuclear reactors, because they emit no CO2, we'd be on the same page. 

So where do you stand on nuclear power? Is it worse than AGW? Why won't greens support it, to save the ice caps?


----------



## mamooth (Jan 23, 2015)

westwall said:


> What measurements?  The ones that are so fine the instruments supposedly making them are not capable of that level of precision so the "readings" are actually computer generated?  Those "measurements"?



The measurements you get when you point an infrared spectrometer at the sky. Here's one example. There's no single master backradiation graph, since results will vary based on things like time of day, temperature, clouds and humidity.

We can _directly_ measure backradiation. No models involved. If a person denies direct measurements, they are a conspiracy nutter.








> Here's the reality of the ARGO floats and the models that you clowns are constantly trying to alter reality to match...



No, that's some meaningless nonsense you took off a denier blog. Please stick with the topic.



> Talk about lack of knowledge...  Sheesh.  Yes UV is a small percentage of total light output it is however the dominant light that reaches into the oceans. It is also far more energetic and thus imparts more energy (which means heat for you nucular watch officers) into the water.



You're essentially the only person on the planet claiming UV is the dominant heating mechanism of the oceans. Energy-wise, UV is a small portion of sunlight, therefore it heats the ocean minimally compared to visible light. Penetration depth is not relevant. A tiny portion penetrating more deeply is still a tiny portion.



> "If our diver wore ultraviolet (UV)-viewing goggles, almost half the light she would see looking down and horizontally would be UV. Light passing through water also becomes polarized, which means its wave motion vibrates in only one direction, or plane. (This also happens to the light reflected as glare from the sea surface or a wet road.) If our diver wore sunglasses that blocked vertically polarized light and looked to her side, her view would be dark; but if she looked up or down, her view would be full of light. The polarized sunglasses would block light vibrating in the horizontal plane, while allowing light vibrating in the vertical plane to pass through."
> 
> Shedding Light on Light in the Ocean Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution



Irrelevant to the topic, the topic being your misunderstanding of how backradiation heats the oceans. Out in the real world, the ocean temperature profile in the daytime looks like this.






Note the log-type scale on the vertical axis

Heat transfer inside the ocean is driven mostly by convection in the top 10 meters. Sunlight is absorbed by the top 10 meters, the water gets warmer and less dense and rises, so water temperature increases as it gets nearer the surface skin.

However, at the skin, that last 20 micrometers, the ocean temperature drops by about a degree, due to the oceans losing heat to the atmosphere by conduction/radiation/evaporation.

The thermal gradient in the skin determines the heat flow out of the ocean into the air. Backradiation heats the skin, makes that gradient less steep, so less heat flows out of the oceans from below, and the oceans warm.

You're welcome. I should charge for this.


----------



## mamooth (Jan 23, 2015)

westwall said:


> No you lying sack of poo, those are the specific requests for climate research ONLY!  Go ahead and actually do some work instead of riding others coat tails you lazy fuck, and go do the research yourself!



So you made a crazy claim, and now you're saying it's everyone else's responsiblity to prove it.

It's not our job to verify your cult's fables. It is the job of ethical people to point out how you willingly parrot your cult's crazy fables. I just did so.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 23, 2015)

mamooth said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > No you lying sack of poo, those are the specific requests for climate research ONLY!  Go ahead and actually do some work instead of riding others coat tails you lazy fuck, and go do the research yourself!
> ...


yo dude/dudette.....ding, ding, ding, ding, I couldn't have said that any better.  So now please provide the experiment that you claim exists on 120 PPM of CO2 affecting temperatures.  woo hoo... finally you get it.  I can't wait to see it.  Frank, it finally gets it!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 23, 2015)

jc456 said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



Not gonna happen, bro

Pooh-Flinging Monkey Mamooth will call  us DENIERS!!!! and claim she already posted the lab work hundreds of times


----------



## jc456 (Jan 23, 2015)

CrusaderFrank said:


> jc456 said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...


 well at least I had a moment. I guess it's back to the pot calling the kettle black from it.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jan 23, 2015)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



All interesting subjects, but have nothing to do with my questions. The right claims some sort of conspiracy on the part of the vast majority of climate scientists to defraud the public. Who is in charge of this conspiracy, and why?


----------



## jc456 (Jan 23, 2015)

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## jc456 (Jan 23, 2015)

In honor of Bulldog:

Bulldog---what’s that?
Skeptic—dog poop?
Bulldog----look like dog poop to me too
Skeptic—pick up,
Bulldog walking.....
Skeptic----feel like dog  poop?
Bulldog—yeah, feel like dog poop
Skeptic—smell
Bulldog—breathing in, ack--yeah, smell like dog poop
Skeptic---taste
Bulldog—munch, munch ackkkkkkk, yeah, taste like dog poop
Skeptic—good thing we not step in it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 23, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


 
*The right claims some sort of conspiracy on the part of the vast majority of climate scientists to defraud the public.*

How much do the climate scientists say we should waste on "green" energy?
How much do they say our investment in more expensive, less reliable energy will reduce global temps in 2080?


----------



## Kosh (Jan 23, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



The far left!

So they can subjugate everyone under government rule.

If all those European nations that funneled trillions into AGW believed in it, then they would  not dismantle alternative energy source in favor of their over bloated social programs..

But then it would require a far left drone to see beyond their programming and as ha been demonstrated time and time again, they can not..


----------



## jasonnfree (Jan 23, 2015)

Kosh said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You're the one who uses far left in just about every post.   Routine never changes.  I think maybe you're the drone.


----------



## gipper (Jan 23, 2015)

The OP is screwy...most R pols love AGW.  Just like the Ds , they want wealth and power over all things.   AGW and big unlimited gov go together like...you know.


----------



## jasonnfree (Jan 23, 2015)

Kosh said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Without far left policies like social security, fox news and hate radio wouldn't have such a large audience of old white seniors.   They'd be out there in the great free market trying to scratch out a living in their old age instead.


----------



## mamooth (Jan 24, 2015)

Final thread summary:

The answer is a definite "yes".

That is, as they've so proudly kept proclaiming here, deniers do tend to believe in their religion solely because their political masters told them to believe.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 24, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Final thread summary:
> 
> The answer is a definite "yes".
> 
> That is, as they've so proudly kept proclaiming here, deniers do tend to believe in their religion solely because their political masters told them to believe.



^ No experiment, hides the decline, altered the data, flawed models, 800,000 year data set shows CO2 lags temperature, Human artifacts under ice in Greenland means Climate change is recent and natural, IPCC admits Climate Change Science is EnviroMarxism, but still they trudge on like a WWII soldier lost in Guam these past 65 years who believes he's still fighting WWII for the Emperor


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jan 24, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Frank, you've already proven you're a bitter cult nutter. No need to keep beating on that point.



To review:

No experiments, hides the decline, altered the data, flawed models, 800,000 year data set shows CO2 lags temperature, Human artifacts under ice in Greenland means Climate change is recent and natural, IPCC admits Climate Change Science is EnviroMarxism, but still they trudge on like a WWII soldier lost in Guam these past 65 years who believes he's still fighting WWII for the Emperor


----------



## westwall (Jan 24, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Final thread summary:
> 
> The answer is a definite "yes".
> 
> That is, as they've so proudly kept proclaiming here, deniers do tend to believe in their religion solely because their political masters told them to believe.








Yes, the AGW cultists do indeed follow the directives of their masters and high priests.  They have no empirical data to support their now failed theory so they resort to obfuscation, falsification, and propaganda in a vain attempt to prop up the fraud.

Thanks for making that so very obvious!


----------



## elektra (Jan 24, 2015)

mamooth said:


> Final thread summary:
> 
> The answer is a definite "yes".
> 
> That is, as they've so proudly kept proclaiming here, deniers do tend to believe in their religion solely because their political masters told them to believe.


I believe the Climate is changing, that is what weather does.

mamoot believes we can stop the changing weather, a Government controlled Temperature? 

mamoot, what speed should the government dictate the wind speed? 

mamoot, how many clouds should we dictate?

mamoot, could I have fair weather at the end of next month, its my birthday at the end of the month.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 24, 2015)

westwall said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...



I have found that personal attacks by morons who haven't the faintest clue what the IPCC and EPA have lied about over the years. They now come in screaming fire, while being devoid of facts, tells me they have no interest in why their position is wrong. You will notice, he did not even address the empirical evidence I supplied him yet went right into the "appeal to authority mode" by asking me what my credentials were.

The fool cant even address the empirical evidence. Just like Mamfool. Old Crock, and others, he asks for things they are unwilling to provide themselves while ignoring the facts presented.  All they have is personal attacks.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jan 24, 2015)

elektra said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > Final thread summary:
> ...



I am still waiting for them to show me how they stopped natural variation..


----------



## Wyld Kard (Jan 24, 2015)

jc456 said:


> Wildcard said:
> 
> 
> > Billy000 said:
> ...


 
It's not just the conservatives they hate.  It's basically anyone at all who doesn't agree with them and their delusions.

Liberals expect everyone else to see things from ONLY their point-of-view.


----------



## Wyld Kard (Jan 24, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


 


> I will not be convinced either way by someone whose goal seems to be more politically based than fact based.


And yet you seem to accept that AGW is legit, which actually is more politically based and a whole lot less fact based, dumbass!


----------



## mamooth (Jan 24, 2015)

The poor deniers has a sad.

Nearly the entire population of planet earth considers deniers to be dishonest cultists.

The world is correct.

Go on deniers. Scream. Pout. Rage. Stomp your feet, shake you fists at the sky. After you're done with the tantrums, the world will still correctly classify you as dishonest cultists.

So, sucks to be you, deniers. However, since you've all freely chosen the path of pathological dishonesty, nobody will feel especially sorry for you. Remember, you can end the constant humiliation you receive by simply walking away from your cult. Or you can grow old, always bitter and ostracized, and then die that way. Make a choice.


----------



## Wyld Kard (Jan 24, 2015)

mamooth said:


> The poor deniers has a sad.
> 
> Nearly the entire population of planet earth considers deniers to be dishonest cultists.
> 
> ...


 
 

Keep drinking that Kool-Aid and ignoring the facts, it's what nutjobs like yourself do best.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jan 24, 2015)

mamooth said:


> The poor deniers has a sad.
> 
> Nearly the entire population of planet earth considers deniers to be dishonest cultists.
> 
> ...


 
*Go on deniers. Scream. Pout. Rage. Stomp your feet, shake you fists at the sky. After you're done with the tantrums, the world will still correctly classify you as dishonest cultists.*

If the warmer idiots wish to waste their own money to reduce their own CO2 output, they should feel free.
If they wish to waste my money, they should feel free to fuck off.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 26, 2015)

mamooth said:


> The poor deniers has a sad.
> 
> Nearly the entire population of planet earth considers deniers to be dishonest cultists.
> 
> ...


 I don't wish to be like you, so I'll go the opposite of your approach.


----------



## jc456 (Jan 26, 2015)

jasonnfree said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


 so you love the far right then?


----------

