Climate Change Deniers Are Immoral

[Toddsterpatriot]

The Climate change deniers of today will be responsible for the suffering of everyone's children tomorrow.

No they won't.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The Climate change deniers of today will be responsible for the suffering of everyone's children tomorrow.

Treasury bonds are worthless subprime mortgages? LOL!
It's good to see his errors aren't limited to climate.

 

[SSDD]

So far the effects of increased temperature and CO2 have been positive. More plant life supports more animal life.

"so far" ------I am not able to PREDICT just HOW the
alterations in atmosphere and temperature will pan out---
but based on the delicate balance determined over hundreds of thousands of years------any fluctuation is cause for concern. Some people believe that the situation will be thrown TOO far off kilter. I would not expect a significant rise in CO2 to actually HELP all of our flora thrive gloriously

Well for me, I'd prefer to see evidence that CO2 has magic powers. Four years in here, Zero evidence provided.

CO2 has VERY MAGICAL POWERS-------try googling what happens to a HUMAN BEAN----who, because of respiratory
problem----ie--lung problems RETAINS CO2. CO2 also
kinda acidifies the---"situation" Want to die? ("god" forbid) put yourself in a sealed room and pump it full or CO2---you will need a one way valve to let the O2 out

on the other hand----without CO2-----where would PEPSI be?

Sorry, but nope

Why do you think the world's scientists - essentially every single one of them - disagree with you JC?

They don't....the claim that they do is just the lie you guys tell when faced with a lack of actual evidence to make your case....there are more logical fallacies in the pro AGW argument than there are flies on a garbage truck.

 

[Crick]

Show us evidence that a huge majority of the world's scientists do not believe CO2, via the greenhouse effect, warms the planet.

 

[SSDD]

Show us evidence that a huge majority of the world's scientists do not believe CO2, via the greenhouse effect, warms the planet.

The fact that the large scientific bodies and academies don't take a vote from their membership is evidence enough...the one political head that tried it very soon regretted the action...

 

[IanC]

Show us evidence that a huge majority of the world's scientists do not believe CO2, via the greenhouse effect, warms the planet.

probably 99.999% of scientists believe the GHE makes surface temperatures warmer than without GHGs.

that does not mean that 99.999% of scientists believe in the catastrophic predictions of AGW alarmists.

 

[Crick]

I don't know where deniers got "catastrophic". Global warming is going to fuck a lot of people up for a very long time and at tremendous expense. But whether or not it is "catastrophic" is semantic bullshit.

 

[jc456]

I don't know where deniers got "catastrophic". Global warming is going to fuck a lot of people up for a very long time and at tremendous expense. But whether or not it is "catastrophic" is semantic bullshit.

or not.

 

[Crick]

What do YOU mean when you use the term jc?

 

[IanC]

I don't know where deniers got "catastrophic". Global warming is going to fuck a lot of people up for a very long time and at tremendous expense. But whether or not it is "catastrophic" is semantic bullshit.

hahahahahahaha.....

Irony alert. someone who says "I don't know where deniers got "catastrophic", and then goes on to add "Global warming is going to fuck a lot of people up for a very long time and at tremendous expense".

hahahahahahahaha.....

 

[jc456]

What do YOU mean when you use the term jc?

what term are you referring to?

 

[Crick]

I don't know where deniers got "catastrophic". Global warming is going to fuck a lot of people up for a very long time and at tremendous expense. But whether or not it is "catastrophic" is semantic bullshit.

hahahahahahaha.....

Irony alert. someone who says "I don't know where deniers got "catastrophic", and then goes on to add "Global warming is going to fuck a lot of people up for a very long time and at tremendous expense".

hahahahahahahaha.....

But mainstream science never used the term "catastrophic anthropogenic global warming". It was an invention (a red herring/straw man) of the deniers.

 

[Crick]

What do YOU mean when you use the term jc?

what term are you referring to?

Short term memory loss?

C A T A S T R O P H I C

 

[jc456]

What do YOU mean when you use the term jc?

what term are you referring to?

Short term memory loss?

C A T A S T R O P H I C

I don't use it for anything with regard to global warming. It is the zealots like you in here who believe the earth is headed to it's doom. That seems catastrophic don't you think? melting ice, nothing but posts about catastrophic results, doom, the earth as we know it will change. Huh? what the fk does that even mean? face it doom and gloom catastrophe is all AGW is about.

 

[IanC]

I don't know where deniers got "catastrophic". Global warming is going to fuck a lot of people up for a very long time and at tremendous expense. But whether or not it is "catastrophic" is semantic bullshit.

hahahahahahaha.....

Irony alert. someone who says "I don't know where deniers got "catastrophic", and then goes on to add "Global warming is going to fuck a lot of people up for a very long time and at tremendous expense".

hahahahahahahaha.....

But mainstream science never used the term "catastrophic anthropogenic global warming". It was an invention (a red herring/straw man) of the deniers.

there is a continuum of opinion on AGW. at one end are the rabid deniers who just say 'no' to everything. at the other end are rabid alarmists who see disaster in every direction.

mainstream skeptics such as myself believe that there has been warming, that CO2 has increased, and that CO2 has a warming influence.

concensus science believes that there has been warming, that CO2 has increased, and that CO2 has a warming influence.

we all believe the same things, right? well, not quite. the alarmists choose to publicize the worst case scenarios every time. if the IPCC give a range of temperature increase for 2100 of 1-6C then they go with 3.5C or higher even though the pdf (probability density function) is closer to 2C. if the IPCC sea level predictions are 0.1meter to 1.0 meter then they go with over half a meter, sometimes even one or two meters. even though the probability is only 8-16 inches.

I will give an example. a few years back there was a (fucking proxy) reconstruction of Ocean Heat Content for the last few thousand years. what was the news story? fastest increase in OHC evah for the last 50 years! was it really the fastest ever, or do we just have instruments to measure it now? what did the rest of the OHC record show? THAT OHC WAS AT THE LOWEST LEVEL IN THE ENTIRE RECONSTRUCTION UNTIL IT STARTED RISING AGAIN IN THE 20TH CENTURY! for thousands of years OHC was steadily decreasing, perhaps forshadowing an impending ice age. was that mentioned? no. was it mentioned that present OHC was still lower than 1000 years ago? no.

the world is greening up and growing more plants because of CO2 and temperature increases. a measured benefit. yet the media and alarmists say, it will be catastrophic real soon now.

 

[jc456]

I don't know where deniers got "catastrophic". Global warming is going to fuck a lot of people up for a very long time and at tremendous expense. But whether or not it is "catastrophic" is semantic bullshit.

hahahahahahaha.....

Irony alert. someone who says "I don't know where deniers got "catastrophic", and then goes on to add "Global warming is going to fuck a lot of people up for a very long time and at tremendous expense".

hahahahahahahaha.....

But mainstream science never used the term "catastrophic anthropogenic global warming". It was an invention (a red herring/straw man) of the deniers.

there is a continuum of opinion on AGW. at one end are the rabid deniers who just say 'no' to everything. at the other end are rabid alarmists who see disaster in every direction.

mainstream skeptics such as myself believe that there has been warming, that CO2 has increased, and that CO2 has a warming influence.

concensus science believes that there has been warming, that CO2 has increased, and that CO2 has a warming influence.

we all believe the same things, right? well, not quite. the alarmists choose to publicize the worst case scenarios every time. if the IPCC give a range of temperature increase for 2100 of 1-6C then they go with 3.5C or higher even though the pdf (probability density function) is closer to 2C. if the IPCC sea level predictions are 0.1meter to 1.0 meter then they go with over half a meter, sometimes even one or two meters. even though the probability is only 8-16 inches.

I will give an example. a few years back there was a (fucking proxy) reconstruction of Ocean Heat Content for the last few thousand years. what was the news story? fastest increase in OHC evah for the last 50 years! was it really the fastest ever, or do we just have instruments to measure it now? what did the rest of the OHC record show? THAT OHC WAS AT THE LOWEST LEVEL IN THE ENTIRE RECONSTRUCTION UNTIL IT STARTED RISING AGAIN IN THE 20TH CENTURY! for thousands of years OHC was steadily decreasing, perhaps forshadowing an impending ice age. was that mentioned? no. was it mentioned that present OHC was still lower than 1000 years ago? no.

the world is greening up and growing more plants because of CO2 and temperature increases. a measured benefit. yet the media and alarmists say, it will be catastrophic real soon now.

Ian, I would actually like to understand why it's important to track something that isn't capable of being tracked. Mainly a global temperature. What is the value behind it except to fear monger poor and naive people? If Chicago's temperatures haven't increased since 1980 how is it that we merely ignore that fact? Why is it most global temperature highs were back in the 1800s? It is a meaningless effort to grab 2100 temperature stations and state that the readings off of these is the globe. How fking stupid is that.

There is only one thing going on, and that is to put the fear of gawd in people who are naive to earth's weather. and the money hungry political faction that wants to rule the world who want to stomp on the poor. and to rid the world of oil.

Whether it is 85 degrees F today and then 50 degrees F tomorrow, what does that mean? temps fluctuate? yep and there is a reason and explained on the weather forecasts with highs and lows and many other variables. but so what? It doesn't stop baseball games, football games or any activities one has to do.

Someone wants to yell the sky is falling i'm going to ask that someone to prove it. end of story. someone wants to say heat is falling from the atmosphere, I will laugh. fly 30,000 feet in an airplane and the temps there are below freezing. money, money money. and it's tied to one group and one group only.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I don't know where deniers got "catastrophic". Global warming is going to fuck a lot of people up for a very long time and at tremendous expense. But whether or not it is "catastrophic" is semantic bullshit.

hahahahahahaha.....

Irony alert. someone who says "I don't know where deniers got "catastrophic", and then goes on to add "Global warming is going to fuck a lot of people up for a very long time and at tremendous expense".

hahahahahahahaha.....

But mainstream science never used the term "catastrophic anthropogenic global warming". It was an invention (a red herring/straw man) of the deniers.

there is a continuum of opinion on AGW. at one end are the rabid deniers who just say 'no' to everything. at the other end are rabid alarmists who see disaster in every direction.

mainstream skeptics such as myself believe that there has been warming, that CO2 has increased, and that CO2 has a warming influence.

concensus science believes that there has been warming, that CO2 has increased, and that CO2 has a warming influence.

we all believe the same things, right? well, not quite. the alarmists choose to publicize the worst case scenarios every time. if the IPCC give a range of temperature increase for 2100 of 1-6C then they go with 3.5C or higher even though the pdf (probability density function) is closer to 2C. if the IPCC sea level predictions are 0.1meter to 1.0 meter then they go with over half a meter, sometimes even one or two meters. even though the probability is only 8-16 inches.

I will give an example. a few years back there was a (fucking proxy) reconstruction of Ocean Heat Content for the last few thousand years. what was the news story? fastest increase in OHC evah for the last 50 years! was it really the fastest ever, or do we just have instruments to measure it now? what did the rest of the OHC record show? THAT OHC WAS AT THE LOWEST LEVEL IN THE ENTIRE RECONSTRUCTION UNTIL IT STARTED RISING AGAIN IN THE 20TH CENTURY! for thousands of years OHC was steadily decreasing, perhaps forshadowing an impending ice age. was that mentioned? no. was it mentioned that present OHC was still lower than 1000 years ago? no.

the world is greening up and growing more plants because of CO2 and temperature increases. a measured benefit. yet the media and alarmists say, it will be catastrophic real soon now.

Ian, I would actually like to understand why it's important to track something that isn't capable of being tracked. Mainly a global temperature. What is the value behind it except to fear monger poor and naive people? If Chicago's temperatures haven't increased since 1980 how is it that we merely ignore that fact? Why is it most global temperature highs were back in the 1800s? It is a meaningless effort to grab 2100 temperature stations and state that the readings off of these is the globe. How fking stupid is that.

There is only one thing going on, and that is to put the fear of gawd in people who are naive to earth's weather. and the money hungry political faction that wants to rule the world who want to stomp on the poor. and to rid the world of oil.

Whether it is 85 degrees F today and then 50 degrees F tomorrow, what does that mean? temps fluctuate? yep and there is a reason and explained on the weather forecasts with highs and lows and many other variables. but so what? It doesn't stop baseball games, football games or any activities one has to do.

Someone wants to yell the sky is falling i'm going to ask that someone to prove it. end of story. someone wants to say heat is falling from the atmosphere, I will laugh. fly 30,000 feet in an airplane and the temps there are below freezing. money, money money. and it's tied to one group and one group only.

Ian, I would actually like to understand why it's important to track something that isn't capable of being tracked. Mainly a global temperature.

To push the scam. AGW, as is currently being pushed, is a scam.

That doesn't change the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Back radiation actually exists.
Photons travel from cool to warm and warm to cool and between objects with identical temperatures, because photons don't know (and wouldn't care if they did) the temperature of the matter they travel toward.

 

[IanC]

I don't know where deniers got "catastrophic". Global warming is going to fuck a lot of people up for a very long time and at tremendous expense. But whether or not it is "catastrophic" is semantic bullshit.

hahahahahahaha.....

Irony alert. someone who says "I don't know where deniers got "catastrophic", and then goes on to add "Global warming is going to fuck a lot of people up for a very long time and at tremendous expense".

hahahahahahahaha.....

But mainstream science never used the term "catastrophic anthropogenic global warming". It was an invention (a red herring/straw man) of the deniers.

there is a continuum of opinion on AGW. at one end are the rabid deniers who just say 'no' to everything. at the other end are rabid alarmists who see disaster in every direction.

mainstream skeptics such as myself believe that there has been warming, that CO2 has increased, and that CO2 has a warming influence.

concensus science believes that there has been warming, that CO2 has increased, and that CO2 has a warming influence.

we all believe the same things, right? well, not quite. the alarmists choose to publicize the worst case scenarios every time. if the IPCC give a range of temperature increase for 2100 of 1-6C then they go with 3.5C or higher even though the pdf (probability density function) is closer to 2C. if the IPCC sea level predictions are 0.1meter to 1.0 meter then they go with over half a meter, sometimes even one or two meters. even though the probability is only 8-16 inches.

I will give an example. a few years back there was a (fucking proxy) reconstruction of Ocean Heat Content for the last few thousand years. what was the news story? fastest increase in OHC evah for the last 50 years! was it really the fastest ever, or do we just have instruments to measure it now? what did the rest of the OHC record show? THAT OHC WAS AT THE LOWEST LEVEL IN THE ENTIRE RECONSTRUCTION UNTIL IT STARTED RISING AGAIN IN THE 20TH CENTURY! for thousands of years OHC was steadily decreasing, perhaps forshadowing an impending ice age. was that mentioned? no. was it mentioned that present OHC was still lower than 1000 years ago? no.

the world is greening up and growing more plants because of CO2 and temperature increases. a measured benefit. yet the media and alarmists say, it will be catastrophic real soon now.

Ian, I would actually like to understand why it's important to track something that isn't capable of being tracked. Mainly a global temperature. What is the value behind it except to fear monger poor and naive people? If Chicago's temperatures haven't increased since 1980 how is it that we merely ignore that fact? Why is it most global temperature highs were back in the 1800s? It is a meaningless effort to grab 2100 temperature stations and state that the readings off of these is the globe. How fking stupid is that.

There is only one thing going on, and that is to put the fear of gawd in people who are naive to earth's weather. and the money hungry political faction that wants to rule the world who want to stomp on the poor. and to rid the world of oil.

Whether it is 85 degrees F today and then 50 degrees F tomorrow, what does that mean? temps fluctuate? yep and there is a reason and explained on the weather forecasts with highs and lows and many other variables. but so what? It doesn't stop baseball games, football games or any activities one has to do.

Someone wants to yell the sky is falling i'm going to ask that someone to prove it. end of story. someone wants to say heat is falling from the atmosphere, I will laugh. fly 30,000 feet in an airplane and the temps there are below freezing. money, money money. and it's tied to one group and one group only.

Information and data are good. You never know what you might find. Science.

Climate science has become somewhat corrupt. Information and data are collected to buttress theories, not to refine or redesign them. Not science.

 

[AZGAL]

Some social conservatives like me appreciate science, including environmental science.

 

[IanC]

Some social conservatives like me appreciate science, including environmental science.

Lots of people of all political stripes appreciate science.

Paul Watson, of GreenPeace fame, has spoken out on the exaggerations and errors of AGW alarmism. he wants us to stop wasting money on imaginary threats and return to action on real problems