Climate Change Has Run Its Course

[CrusaderFrank]

^ Guam, refuses to sink or tip over, a fucking Denier!!

 

[buckeye45_73]

Actually only a small percentage of Scientists believe in the cult of global warming and all of their funding is tied to it, so they wouldn't tell the public the truth because their careers and funding stream depends on keeping the hoax going.

Science is a big subject, not all of science is pertinent to climate change.
But there is a 97 percent consensus.

consensus is not law.......gravity is a law.....

 

[buckeye45_73]

^ Guam, refuses to sink or tip over, a fucking Denier!!

it's still upright???

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Actually only a small percentage of Scientists believe in the cult of global warming and all of their funding is tied to it, so they wouldn't tell the public the truth because their careers and funding stream depends on keeping the hoax going.

Science is a big subject, not all of science is pertinent to climate change.
But there is a 97 percent consensus.

Warming = Global Warming
Cooling = Climate Change
Consensus = Moonbat

Consensus is NOT a term of science, it's a lunatic fringe Moonbat Cult word.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

^ Guam, refuses to sink or tip over, a fucking Denier!!

it's still upright???

Unfuckingreal, right? The ice caps melting but Guam is STILL a denier

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Talk about an OP born of pure delusion. How desperate do people have to be to make 'the bad stuff go away' that they go to such lengths to fool themselves. Pathological.

I know, right? How delusional are we to think that communists actually give up on their miserably-failed ideology. We should know better by now. Commies are nothing if not tenacious. That is why the only good commie is a dead commie.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Well, plant life is the greatest carbon sink on earth. We just need to capture and sequester it.

You mean find a way to make it taxable and re-distributive?

 

[initforme]

It had a negligible effect in the economy so nothing hurt anyway.

 

[Rustic]

No but the anti crowd is getting smaller and smaller in the scientific community...

If you keep reading from your NAZI friends you might think the Jews came up with it...

Na, Climate change worship is all about control has nothing to do with climate

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Leftists object to my plant-a-tree offset plan because they can't figure out a reasonable way to tax such action and that is not an effective way to steal wealth.

 

[Redfish]

Yes, less than half and the number of believers is getting smaller every year as more and more real data is collected and studied.

Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

I guess the scientists at NASA are in on it too, because they and a lot of other credible sources say it's about 97% that believe we contribute to it to varying extents.

And before you retort with "the 97% figure is false" I'll go ahead and pull that argument apart. What's false is when it's said that 97% believe that humans are directly responsible and believe it's an imminent threat. What 97% do believe is that humans contribute to varying extents, with a large majority still believing we are a major contributor to climate change. The consensus was exaggerated, but only a little. What you just said is completely absurd and 100% false.

Why do they believe we are a "major contributor?"

You should try listening to what actual scientists are saying. They know what they're talking about. It's not a conspiracy. There are lots of resources out there if you're actually interested in learning, but you're not.

do you understand that they are being paid to come up with those conclusions? It is a conspiracy, a liberal conspiracy to control the human population by government mandate in order to "save the planet" its bullshit.

Yes, man is polluting the air and water, in some places more than others, but there is no proven link between man made pollution and climate, that's the part that is a fraud.

so one more time, if your goal is to stop man made pollution, why isn't that enough? Why do you need to make up a pollution/climate link in order to fight pollution? Please think before responding.

 

[Redfish]

"i am one of the 97% of scientists that believe man is destroying our planet despite this cycle happening naturally. Now please excuse me while i go jump on my private jumbo jet that spews more co2 in 8 hours than you do all year, and be disingenuous to another group of useful idiots. Dont forget to sign the checks!"

If climate scientists are in it for the money, they’re doing it wrong


So, are there big bucks to be had in climate science? Since it doesn't have a lot of commercial appeal, most of the people working in the area, and the vast majority of those publishing the scientific literature, work in academic departments or at government agencies. Penn State, home of noted climatologists Richard Alley and Michael Mann, has a strong geosciences department and, conveniently, makes the department's salary information available. It's easy to check, and find that the average tenured professor earned about $120,000 last year, and a new hire a bit less than $70,000. That's a pretty healthy salary by many standards, but it's hardly a racket.

without the govt grants those jobs would not exist. Yes, its a racket.

 

[BlindBoo]

Well, plant life is the greatest carbon sink on earth. We just need to capture and sequester it.

You mean find a way to make it taxable and re-distributive?

Nope, find a way to bury it cheaply in an oxygen free environment to remove the carbon from the carbon cycle.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Nope, find a way to bury it cheaply in an oxygen free environment to remove the carbon from the carbon cycle.

See, now that brings up another logical short-circuit.

The argument is that we are releasing carbon that was buried in the earth for millions of years. Where did that carbon come from? We're just recycling carbon that has always existed on Earth.

How did the carbon that was buried for millions of years stay solid and not become gas CO2, but any plant today will automatically release huge amounts of carbon when it decays?

For millions of years, plants have decayed and released CO2. Where did the million years worth of CO2 go if plants absorb it, only to re-emit it back into the atmosphere when decaying?

It can't be both ways.

It's like all decay release of CO2 never occurred for millions of years, and only started in 1970.

 

[BlindBoo]

Nope, find a way to bury it cheaply in an oxygen free environment to remove the carbon from the carbon cycle.

See, now that brings up another logical short-circuit.

The argument is that we are releasing carbon that was buried in the earth for millions of years. Where did that carbon come from? We're just recycling carbon that has always existed on Earth.

How did the carbon that was buried for millions of years stay solid and not become gas CO2, but any plant today will automatically release huge amounts of carbon when it decays?

For millions of years, plants have decayed and released CO2. Where did the million years worth of CO2 go if plants absorb it, only to re-emit it back into the atmosphere when decaying?

It can't be both ways.

It's like all decay release of CO2 never occurred for millions of years, and only started in 1970.

Basically the oil and coal comes vegetation and little animal bodies that, during the carboniferous period, were sequestered before they decayed.

 

[basquebromance]

we are either going to be losers or heroes...there's no room anymore for anything in between.

we must save the planet.

if all you do is all you've ever done, then all you'll ever get is all you ever got. we need transformational change to save our planet.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

we are either going to be losers or heroes...there's no room anymore for anything in between.

we must save the planet.

if all you do is all you've ever done, then all you'll ever get is all you ever got. we need transformational change to save our planet.

Only by surrendering ourselves to a One World Government can we make any real change.

It won't affect the climate, but that's not the point

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Basically the oil and coal comes vegetation and little animal bodies that, during the carboniferous period, were sequestered before they decayed.

How much gets sequestered verses released on decay? I would think way more co2 gets released on decay, rather than sequestered, so where did the millions of years worth of carbon go?

 

[BlindBoo]

Basically the oil and coal comes vegetation and little animal bodies that, during the carboniferous period, were sequestered before they decayed.

How much gets sequestered verses released on decay? It has to be MUCH less that gets sequestered, so where did the millions of years worth of carbon go?

LOL. Every bit of the carbon in each barrel of crude oil ever processed, or vein of coal ,mined, was sequestered.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Matter is neither created nor destroyed. The co2 had to come from somewhere and has to go somewhere.

If trees/plants sequester co2 only to re-release that co2 back into the atmosphere when they die and decay, millions of years worth of co2 is missing, right?