Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You act as though just because the scientific community can't fully understand it that somehow undermines the integrity of the idea. It doesn't. Plus, it isn't about "warming". It's about climate irregularity. I shouldn't have said "global warming" in this post. It's an outdated, oversimplication of the phenomenon.
Repeatedly making the same irrelevant arguments, doesn't make them any more logical. Why are natural cycles only important when they're convenient, but ignored when they're not?
LOL, you just defeated your own argument. you warmers are funny creatures
How have I defeated my own argument? AGW proponents have always known that natural cycles play a role in climate. It's the deniers that only invoke them when it's convenient.
[/COLOR][/B]
LOL, you just defeated your own argument. you warmers are funny creatures
How have I defeated my own argument? AGW proponents have always known that natural cycles play a role in climate. It's the deniers that only invoke them when it's convenient.
OK, lets go slow. you agree that there are normal climatic cycles, and then you claim that man has disrupted them by driving SUVs and allowing cows to fart.
if the cycles are "natural" then man has nothing to do with them.
20 years of no warming and observation has deviated from 4 main model predictions. Almost every prediction is adjusted in order to fit the narrative to perpetuate the lie the that is AGW.
Quote by Ottmar Edenhoffer, high level UN-IPCC official: "We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy...Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization...One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore."
Quote by Stephen Schneider, Stanford Univ., environmentalist: "That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have."
Quote by Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister: No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.
Quote by Dixy Lee Ray, former liberal Democrat governor of State of Washington, U.S.: "The objective, clearly enunciated by the leaders of UNCED, is to bring about a change in the present system of independent nations. The future is to be World Government with central planning by the United Nations. Fear of environmental crises - whether real or not - is expected to lead to compliance
One has to be a thundering dunderhead to believe the political science of AGW
You act as though just because the scientific community can't fully understand it that somehow undermines the integrity of the idea. It doesn't. Plus, it isn't about "warming". It's about climate irregularity. I shouldn't have said "global warming" in this post. It's an outdated, oversimplication of the phenomenon.
and do you see what the problem is? first global cooling then global warming now climate change.... blah blah blah it has been going on for milliions of years. and your right the scientist should of kept the politics out of this.
Seriously, how can this be a politically motivated ideology when the INTERNATIONAL scientific community overwhelming believes it to be a very real, man made phenomenon.
I really think if a douche like Al Gore hadn't shined the light on it, the US would be on board. It should have been independent scientists that came forward on this issue. Of course then Americans would just ignore it because they are willfully ignorant.
It's a funny discussion because there really is climate change. The climate/earth have been changing forever. Suddenly it's all man's fault and water vapor and CO2 are causing a warming of the planet that stopped almost 20 years ago.
And we're suppose to believe that it's happening anyway because everything that happens in weather, climate, etc is because of this "phenom".
Seriously, how can this be a politically motivated ideology when the INTERNATIONAL scientific community overwhelming believes it to be a very real, man made phenomenon.
I really think if a douche like Al Gore hadn't shined the light on it, the US would be on board. It should have been independent scientists that came forward on this issue. Of course then Americans would just ignore it because they are willfully ignorant.
"Alone"? Is that a scientific term? I'm glad that the left admits that GW is a political issue. It's easy yo see the "international scientific community" is in it for the money with lavish grants and energy agendas and even blatant extortion schemes. The guru of global warming , Al Gore is a hypocrite who was trying to sell fictitious "carbon credits" until the market fell apart. GW is a freaking religious experience to the left. We are expected to trust the "findings" of self described scientists who tell us not to believe what we see and feel and instead substitute their concept of reality. Tune into the "weather channel". They will tell you that March was the coldest in more than a decade.
Seriously, how can this be a politically motivated ideology when the INTERNATIONAL scientific community overwhelming believes it to be a very real, man made phenomenon.
I really think if a douche like Al Gore hadn't shined the light on it, the US would be on board. It should have been independent scientists that came forward on this issue. Of course then Americans would just ignore it because they are willfully ignorant.
"Alone"? Is that a scientific term? I'm glad that the left admits that GW is a political issue. It's easy yo see the "international scientific community" is in it for the money with lavish grants and energy agendas and even blatant extortion schemes. The guru of global warming , Al Gore is a hypocrite who was trying to sell fictitious "carbon credits" until the market fell apart. GW is a freaking religious experience to the left. We are expected to trust the "findings" of self described scientists who tell us not to believe what we see and feel and instead substitute their concept of reality. Tune into the "weather channel". They will tell you that March was the coldest in more than a decade.
It's very evident that you do not know anything about the science behind this. Why do you bother? Stop watching Fox News and educate yourself.
Seriously, how can this be a politically motivated ideology when the INTERNATIONAL scientific community overwhelming believes it to be a very real, man made phenomenon.
I really think if a douche like Al Gore hadn't shined the light on it, the US would be on board. It should have been independent scientists that came forward on this issue. Of course then Americans would just ignore it because they are willfully ignorant.
"Alone"? Is that a scientific term? I'm glad that the left admits that GW is a political issue. It's easy yo see the "international scientific community" is in it for the money with lavish grants and energy agendas and even blatant extortion schemes. The guru of global warming , Al Gore is a hypocrite who was trying to sell fictitious "carbon credits" until the market fell apart. GW is a freaking religious experience to the left. We are expected to trust the "findings" of self described scientists who tell us not to believe what we see and feel and instead substitute their concept of reality. Tune into the "weather channel". They will tell you that March was the coldest in more than a decade.
It's very evident that you do not know anything about the science behind this. Why do you bother? Stop watching Fox News and educate yourself.
It's not exactly a gop/dem issue. Multi-nationals ans insurance companies already factor in GW costs, and modify their biz plans to adjust. The gop funded media here simply flogs public opinion to elect pols who will not use govt regulations to modify behavior. And the liberal funded media do the opposite. Generally the gop is winning ... because they have more money.
In the end, it probably doesn't matter. We will adapt and will use the least expensive energy source we can find.
How have I defeated my own argument? AGW proponents have always known that natural cycles play a role in climate. It's the deniers that only invoke them when it's convenient.
OK, lets go slow. you agree that there are normal climatic cycles, and then you claim that man has disrupted them by driving SUVs and allowing cows to fart.
if the cycles are "natural" then man has nothing to do with them.
Never said man had anything to do with natural cycles. What isn't natural is the increase in CO2 and the increase in temps over time. Where's the CO2 coming from? What happens to the extra IR radiation trapped? Those are the important questions. You're acting as if it's an either/or question between natural cycles and AGW, when logically there's no way it couldn't be both.
It's a funny discussion because there really is climate change. The climate/earth have been changing forever. Suddenly it's all man's fault and water vapor and CO2 are causing a warming of the planet that stopped almost 20 years ago.
And we're suppose to believe that it's happening anyway because everything that happens in weather, climate, etc is because of this "phenom".
I don't understand why you think you are such an authority on this topic. There are thousand of peer reviewed studies that are evidence for made made climate change. Why should I take anything you say seriously?
It's a funny discussion because there really is climate change. The climate/earth have been changing forever. Suddenly it's all man's fault and water vapor and CO2 are causing a warming of the planet that stopped almost 20 years ago.
And we're suppose to believe that it's happening anyway because everything that happens in weather, climate, etc is because of this "phenom".
I don't understand why you think you are such an authority on this topic. There are thousand of peer reviewed studies that are evidence for made made climate change. Why should I take anything you say seriously?
Yes, the evidence is in the failed computer model generated predictions. They fail over and over again. It's not me you need to believe, in fact, I would prefer belief be left out of it. But that's really the whoel argument in this political science psy-op. BELIEF.
The main stream concensus admits that the 20 year no warming observation is there "and is good". that observation is deviating from prediction in all models adn yet, they refuse to even LOOK at their own models. Why? I'll tell you why, because this is about politics and agenda. it doesn't need to be real, viable science. it needs to squash any other narrative and maintain its current one for the sake of political discourse.
No matter what evidence is presented to discount, or at least drastically damage the consensus, the alarmists will never budge and will continue to make excuses to perpetuate validity in the face of failure.
I see no warming over the past 5 years.
