Climate change is a farce and the Obamas just proved it.....

[mamooth]

So the deniers predicted global cooling and were proven wrong, yet according to them, that proves deniers were right, and that the people who correctly predicted the warming were wrong.

It's not possible to reason with cultists as irrational as the deniers here. Most of them are simply stupid people, howling at the moon because they see their cult collapsing around them. They can't be redeemed. The goal now is harm reduction, minimizing the damage the denier cult does as it thrashes about in its death throes. We do that by mockery.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"Ever since, Gwynne's "global cooling" story – and a similar Time Magazine piece....."

How the Global Cooling Story Came to Be - Scientific American

Hide the Decline, fuckwad

You are too stupid to even read your own link:

Mark McCaffrey, programs and policy director of the National Center for Science Education based in Oakland, Calif. "If it weren't for the fact that humans had become a force of nature, we would be slipping back into an ice age, according to orbital cycles."

But earth's glacial rhythms are "being overridden by human activities, especially burning fossil fuels," McCaffrey noted. The stories about global cooling "are convenient for people to trot out and wave around," he said, but they miss the point:

"What's clear is we are a force of nature. Human activity – the burning of fossil fuels and land change – is having a massive influence. We are in the midst of this giant geoengineering experiment."

I read it you stupid fuck, the point is that a short while ago your mindless, death worshiping Cult was worried about "Global Cooling" and there WAS an article in Time

Just shut the fuck up

 

[westwall]

So the deniers predicted global cooling and were proven wrong, yet according to them, that proves deniers were right, and that the people who correctly predicted the warming were wrong.

It's not possible to reason with cultists as irrational as the deniers here. Most of them are simply stupid people, howling at the moon because they see their cult collapsing around them. They can't be redeemed. The goal now is harm reduction, minimizing the damage the denier cult does as it thrashes about in its death throes. We do that by mockery.

No, the sceptics predict that the climate is going to remain pretty much as it has been for the last 30 years. In other words static. In a worst case scenario the world is indeed cooling and that isn't good for anyone.

 

[mamooth]

But the scientists predicted warming, and have been shown to be 100% correct. Therefore, it's kind of crazy to clam they were wrong.

The AGW scientsts have been correct on damn near everything for decades running now. That's why they have so much credibility. Raging on a message board won't change that. Only good science that shows otherwise would change that. And that won't happen, because the data doesn't support it.

 

[westwall]

But the scientists predicted warming, and have been shown to be 100% correct. Therefore, it's kind of crazy to clam they were wrong.

The AGW scientsts have been correct on damn near everything for decades running now. That's why they have so much credibility. Raging on a message board won't change that. Only good science that shows otherwise would change that. And that won't happen, because the data doesn't support it.

100% of zero warming is zero, admiral. The AGW scientists have been correct on NOTHING for three decades! They have had their asses handed to them by a statistician!

 

[edthecynic]

"Ever since, Gwynne's "global cooling" story – and a similar Time Magazine piece....."

How the Global Cooling Story Came to Be - Scientific American

Hide the Decline, fuckwad

You are too stupid to even read your own link:

Mark McCaffrey, programs and policy director of the National Center for Science Education based in Oakland, Calif. "If it weren't for the fact that humans had become a force of nature, we would be slipping back into an ice age, according to orbital cycles."

But earth's glacial rhythms are "being overridden by human activities, especially burning fossil fuels," McCaffrey noted. The stories about global cooling "are convenient for people to trot out and wave around," he said, but they miss the point:

"What's clear is we are a force of nature. Human activity – the burning of fossil fuels and land change – is having a massive influence. We are in the midst of this giant geoengineering experiment."

I read it you stupid fuck, the point is that a short while ago your mindless, death worshiping Cult was worried about "Global Cooling" and there WAS an article in Time

Just shut the fuck up

Nope, it was you stupid deniers predicting global cooling 30 years ago when the warming flattened, and you still are wrong predicting cooling as the warming flattened again. There has been no cooling cycle for 100 years.

 

[Old Rocks]

But the scientists predicted warming, and have been shown to be 100% correct. Therefore, it's kind of crazy to clam they were wrong.

The AGW scientsts have been correct on damn near everything for decades running now. That's why they have so much credibility. Raging on a message board won't change that. Only good science that shows otherwise would change that. And that won't happen, because the data doesn't support it.

100% of zero warming is zero, admiral. The AGW scientists have been correct on NOTHING for three decades! They have had their asses handed to them by a statistician!

No matter how much you lie, ol' Walleyes, this remains, and you cannot change this;

Publication Abstracts
Hansen et al. 1981
Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, 213, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.

The global temperature rose 0.2°C between the middle 1960s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated 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 1980s. 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.

• Download PDF (2.6 MB; scanned, no OCR)
• Go to journal webpage

 

[Old Rocks]

However, since ol' Walleyes peer group includes Billy Boob, and he states that there is no drought in California, what else can we expect of Walleyes.

 

[Vigilante]

However, since ol' Walleyes peer group includes Billy Boob, and he states that there is no drought in California, what else can we expect of Walleyes.

It's WEATHER, you fucking left wing scumbag, It happens all the time... you old enough to remember the DUST BOWL, or even read about it, in the 30's? THAT was Global Climate Change...right?... Fucking leftist will believe anything their MASTERS tell them!

 

[westwall]

But the scientists predicted warming, and have been shown to be 100% correct. Therefore, it's kind of crazy to clam they were wrong.

The AGW scientsts have been correct on damn near everything for decades running now. That's why they have so much credibility. Raging on a message board won't change that. Only good science that shows otherwise would change that. And that won't happen, because the data doesn't support it.

100% of zero warming is zero, admiral. The AGW scientists have been correct on NOTHING for three decades! They have had their asses handed to them by a statistician!

No matter how much you lie, ol' Walleyes, this remains, and you cannot change this;

Publication Abstracts
Hansen et al. 1981
Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, 213, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.

The global temperature rose 0.2°C between the middle 1960s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated 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 1980s. 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.

• Download PDF (2.6 MB; scanned, no OCR)
• Go to journal webpage

And you can't alter the fact that he was as wrong then, as he is now. Thanks for playing but pointing to Hansen doesn't help your cause, comrade.

 

[Old Rocks]

Comrade? So you are throwing in the towel, and using the old, 'But he's a commie' flap-yap when you have no answer.

 

[jc456]

But the scientists predicted warming, and have been shown to be 100% correct. Therefore, it's kind of crazy to clam they were wrong.

The AGW scientsts have been correct on damn near everything for decades running now. That's why they have so much credibility. Raging on a message board won't change that. Only good science that shows otherwise would change that. And that won't happen, because the data doesn't support it.

where?

 

[jc456]

But the scientists predicted warming, and have been shown to be 100% correct. Therefore, it's kind of crazy to clam they were wrong.

The AGW scientsts have been correct on damn near everything for decades running now. That's why they have so much credibility. Raging on a message board won't change that. Only good science that shows otherwise would change that. And that won't happen, because the data doesn't support it.

100% of zero warming is zero, admiral. The AGW scientists have been correct on NOTHING for three decades! They have had their asses handed to them by a statistician!

No matter how much you lie, ol' Walleyes, this remains, and you cannot change this;

Publication Abstracts
Hansen et al. 1981
Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, 213, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.

The global temperature rose 0.2°C between the middle 1960s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated 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 1980s. 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.

• Download PDF (2.6 MB; scanned, no OCR)
• Go to journal webpage

and yet, no experiment proves any of that. too bad

 

[jc456]

Comrade? So you are throwing in the towel, and using the old, 'But he's a commie' flap-yap when you have no answer.

answer to what? You posted bull shit and he called you on it. What was there to answer?

And still no experiment.

 

[westwall]

Comrade? So you are throwing in the towel, and using the old, 'But he's a commie' flap-yap when you have no answer.

Oh, you're not a commie olfraud. You're a progressive hypocrite telling all of us to use less while you work for a Russian corporation notorious for the amount of pollution it generates in a industry that is known for pollution. In other words you're just a whore. You'll take all the cash they will give you and screw your neighbors and laugh gleefully while you do it.

 

[bripat9643]

Flopping Aces ^ | 03-14-15 | DrJohn
One gallon of jet fuel burned creates about 19 pounds of C02. A 747 burns about 25,000 pounds of fuel per hour. A round trip from Washington DC to LA would take about 11- 11 1/2 hours. That comes to about 287,000 pounds of fuel. And that results in the production of about 5,462,500 pounds of CO2. A 757 burns about 6,000 pounds of jet fuel per hour. A similar round trip to LA would burn about 69,000 pounds of fuel and create about 1,310,000 pounds of CO2. Barack Obama and Michelle Obama both traveled to Los Angeles on the...

A non-stop from DC to LA is about 6 hours, not 11.

It says ROUND TRIP in the article!

Ah, yes, that's correct. I forgot to consider the return trip

 

[Crick]

How about the fuel burned by the US military?

How about the fuel burned by Americans driving SUVs carrying what could travel in a Fiat 500?

How about the fuel burned by Americans in recreational vehicles: boats, campers, 4 wheelers?

How about the fuel burned by Americans driving when they could walk or use a bicycle?

Do you travel by commercial jet?

 

[bripat9643]

How about the fuel burned by the US military?

How about the fuel burned by Americans driving SUVs carrying what could travel in a Fiat 500?

How about the fuel burned by Americans in recreational vehicles: boats, campers, 4 wheelers?

How about the fuel burned by Americans driving when they could walk or use a bicycle?

Do you travel by commercial jet?

How does any of that prove Obama and Moochelle are not a couple of hypocrites?