Global.Warming

[westwall]

No one is defeating science other than the frauds who are pushing AGW in an effort to enrich themselves and generate political control. When these clowns are gone science will recover quite nicely.

No, the methods being used against science don't have anything to do with science.

And, across the board, science is monumentally behind there being a significant human contribution to the climate change that is going on.

So, yes, you are gloating about defeating science.

Nope. You are absolutely wrong on that count. The 93% nonsense is a bullshit meme that has been proven false repeatedly. Only those who profit from the AGW fraud,and the willfully ignorant pay that claim any heed. And for the record I AM a scientist. Unlike you.

No, you've got nothing to support your nonsense about science being divided on this issue in any way that is meaningful.

And, nobody is profiting from this. Ask Miami Beach if they are profiting. Ask NOLA if they are profiting. Ask those behind the Chesapeake bay plan if sea rise is profitable. Ask Russia if they are ready to give up on their new Arctic land acquisition petition to the UN that is based on climate change - was that profitable for us? Ask farmers in the central valley of CA if they're profiting. Ask Syria if the multi-year drought there, clearly exacerbated by climate change, was profitable - vs. our national security analysis that shows that as a cause of war there.

I just don't see you thinking yet. Defeating science is not profitable. Ever.

Ask yourself a simple question, if the threat was soooooooo grreat, why are there no draconian measures being pushed to control the global temps? Hmm? Why is the only plan to enact a carbon tax that allows you to keep on polluting, you just have to pay the wealthy elite for the privilege.

If you're so smart you tell me why that is a fact.

??? It's because we have IDIOTS in congress and Republicans everywhere wanting us to buy and use fossil fuel as fast as possible. BigOil, BigCoal, etc., are making billions on this, and they're working hard to protect their gigantic revenue being made from resources that belong to you and me as much as to them.

Taxes are one method America has for influencing behavior. We also have other methods, such as regulations, prohibitions, tort, etc.

Taxes don't go to the wealthy elite. A federal tax on fuel would undoubtedly go to the general fund, where it would offset taxes collected from our income - that is, we could lower income taxes at the same time we raise fuel taxes in a way that is revenue neutral.

In UK, for example, taxes on fuel are higher than the cost of the gas itself. But, that money offsets taxes that would be collected from income, so an individual who is careful of gas use will end up paying the government LESS tax overall.

Done correctly, taxes on carbon use are likely to be a significant reduction in impact on our climate while being as small as possible impact on our overall taxes.

Let's remember that essentially ALL other nations have fuel taxes that are MANY times as high as ours, yet their economies aren't dying.

These claims of carbon tax catastrophe are political BS.

Let us know how a carbon tax is going to prevent pollution. It's a simple question. Answer it.

 

[WillReadmore]

No, the methods being used against science don't have anything to do with science.

And, across the board, science is monumentally behind there being a significant human contribution to the climate change that is going on.

So, yes, you are gloating about defeating science.

Nope. You are absolutely wrong on that count. The 93% nonsense is a bullshit meme that has been proven false repeatedly. Only those who profit from the AGW fraud,and the willfully ignorant pay that claim any heed. And for the record I AM a scientist. Unlike you.

No, you've got nothing to support your nonsense about science being divided on this issue in any way that is meaningful.

And, nobody is profiting from this. Ask Miami Beach if they are profiting. Ask NOLA if they are profiting. Ask those behind the Chesapeake bay plan if sea rise is profitable. Ask Russia if they are ready to give up on their new Arctic land acquisition petition to the UN that is based on climate change - was that profitable for us? Ask farmers in the central valley of CA if they're profiting. Ask Syria if the multi-year drought there, clearly exacerbated by climate change, was profitable - vs. our national security analysis that shows that as a cause of war there.

I just don't see you thinking yet. Defeating science is not profitable. Ever.

Ask yourself a simple question, if the threat was soooooooo grreat, why are there no draconian measures being pushed to control the global temps? Hmm? Why is the only plan to enact a carbon tax that allows you to keep on polluting, you just have to pay the wealthy elite for the privilege.

If you're so smart you tell me why that is a fact.

??? It's because we have IDIOTS in congress and Republicans everywhere wanting us to buy and use fossil fuel as fast as possible. BigOil, BigCoal, etc., are making billions on this, and they're working hard to protect their gigantic revenue being made from resources that belong to you and me as much as to them.

Taxes are one method America has for influencing behavior. We also have other methods, such as regulations, prohibitions, tort, etc.

Taxes don't go to the wealthy elite. A federal tax on fuel would undoubtedly go to the general fund, where it would offset taxes collected from our income - that is, we could lower income taxes at the same time we raise fuel taxes in a way that is revenue neutral.

In UK, for example, taxes on fuel are higher than the cost of the gas itself. But, that money offsets taxes that would be collected from income, so an individual who is careful of gas use will end up paying the government LESS tax overall.

Done correctly, taxes on carbon use are likely to be a significant reduction in impact on our climate while being as small as possible impact on our overall taxes.

Let's remember that essentially ALL other nations have fuel taxes that are MANY times as high as ours, yet their economies aren't dying.

These claims of carbon tax catastrophe are political BS.

Let us know how a carbon tax is going to prevent pollution. It's a simple question. Answer it.

A tax on carbon would encourage investments in alternative energy that is carbon free.

It would also encourage moves toward greater energy efficiency. For example, better insulation, more efficient equipment, etc. Every watt of electricity saved is the same as creating a new watt.

And, again, if carbon tax revenues are used to reduce income tax revenues, we end up being further rewarded for finding efficiencies. We end up with a way that we can reduce our own taxes!

Plus, products and services that require fossil fuel can still be provided - it's not a regulation against a particular process. It's just a pressure in one consistent direction.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Nope. You are absolutely wrong on that count. The 93% nonsense is a bullshit meme that has been proven false repeatedly. Only those who profit from the AGW fraud,and the willfully ignorant pay that claim any heed. And for the record I AM a scientist. Unlike you.

No, you've got nothing to support your nonsense about science being divided on this issue in any way that is meaningful.

And, nobody is profiting from this. Ask Miami Beach if they are profiting. Ask NOLA if they are profiting. Ask those behind the Chesapeake bay plan if sea rise is profitable. Ask Russia if they are ready to give up on their new Arctic land acquisition petition to the UN that is based on climate change - was that profitable for us? Ask farmers in the central valley of CA if they're profiting. Ask Syria if the multi-year drought there, clearly exacerbated by climate change, was profitable - vs. our national security analysis that shows that as a cause of war there.

I just don't see you thinking yet. Defeating science is not profitable. Ever.

Ask yourself a simple question, if the threat was soooooooo grreat, why are there no draconian measures being pushed to control the global temps? Hmm? Why is the only plan to enact a carbon tax that allows you to keep on polluting, you just have to pay the wealthy elite for the privilege.

If you're so smart you tell me why that is a fact.

??? It's because we have IDIOTS in congress and Republicans everywhere wanting us to buy and use fossil fuel as fast as possible. BigOil, BigCoal, etc., are making billions on this, and they're working hard to protect their gigantic revenue being made from resources that belong to you and me as much as to them.

Taxes are one method America has for influencing behavior. We also have other methods, such as regulations, prohibitions, tort, etc.

Taxes don't go to the wealthy elite. A federal tax on fuel would undoubtedly go to the general fund, where it would offset taxes collected from our income - that is, we could lower income taxes at the same time we raise fuel taxes in a way that is revenue neutral.

In UK, for example, taxes on fuel are higher than the cost of the gas itself. But, that money offsets taxes that would be collected from income, so an individual who is careful of gas use will end up paying the government LESS tax overall.

Done correctly, taxes on carbon use are likely to be a significant reduction in impact on our climate while being as small as possible impact on our overall taxes.

Let's remember that essentially ALL other nations have fuel taxes that are MANY times as high as ours, yet their economies aren't dying.

These claims of carbon tax catastrophe are political BS.

WHAT??? A tax not for revenue purposes? So you're saying taxes are used to control behavior? that's a big step for a liberal to admit






Let us know how a carbon tax is going to prevent pollution. It's a simple question. Answer it.

A tax on carbon would encourage investments in alternative energy that is carbon free.

It would also encourage moves toward greater energy efficiency. For example, better insulation, more efficient equipment, etc. Every watt of electricity saved is the same as creating a new watt.

And, again, if carbon tax revenues are used to reduce income tax revenues, we end up being further rewarded for finding efficiencies. We end up with a way that we can reduce our own taxes!

Plus, products and services that require fossil fuel can still be provided - it's not a regulation against a particular process. It's just a pressure in one consistent direction.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Of course Global Climate Change exists.

And man has nothing to do with it.

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.

Manmade Global Warming has no factual backing whatsoever.

The people who say you should pay more tax money to help "fight global warming", are the same people who say you should pay your money for this fine bottle of snake oil that will cure all your ills. They are merely liars, charlatans, and con artists.

And this poll shows that 2/3 of Americans know exactly what these con artists are, and ignore them with the contempt they deserve.

Even the leftist loons who scream about how we have to use government to change everything, 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-PLUS 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.

Why don't you leftist fanatics go recruit adherents from the Flat Earth Society? You will find people of your mindset, in great numbers there.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Human activities are changing Earth’s climate.

Human‐caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed global average surface warming of roughly 0.8°C (1.5°F) over the past 140 years.

So many claims. So little proof. As usual.

Nothing but links to other "studies" that also provide no proof.

You'd think that in 40-plus years of trying, the leftist fanatics would have come up with at least a little proof that man's activities had any effect on Global Whatever.

But nope. Zero, zilch, nada.

Nothing but repeated innuendoes and wishful thinking.

As usual.

 

[Little-Acorn]

This chart is made from data taken by scientists studying deep ice in Antarctica. It starts a little more than 400 million years ago. It shows estimated global temperatures, based on the best available data, compared to the temperatures we have nowadays.

Note the pattern.

Temperatures started around where they are today. Then they dropped rapidly, not the few tenths of a degree the present hysterics are telling us about, but going down 4 to 8 degrees C. And they stayed there for more than 60,000 years.

Then they rose suddenly, as much as 10 degrees C, but quickly dropped back down to the lower levels, and stayed low for another 80,000 years.

Then they rose again for a short time, but dropped back down and mostly stayed low for another 100,000 years.

Then they rose again briefly, but dropped back down and stayed low yet again for another 100,000 years.

Then they rose again, and have stayed for a brief period... which brings us to the present day.

Note that this repeated cycle, has happened over and over, without the hand of man going anywhere near the planet in any significant way. Would anyone like to support the idea that those greedy, wasteful humans were burning too much oil, a hundred thousand years ago when the previous peak occured? Maybe driving too many prehistoric SUVs two hundred thousand years ago? Maybe a jurassic Al Gore was chartering huge jets all over the world 300,000 years ago, warning his fellow humans back then about the dangers of THAT period of "global warming"?

Al Gore and the rest of his junk-science salesmen want us to believe that we will see temperatures getting warmer from where they are, with no end in sight. And he proposes massive government expenditures, massive programs, and huge government restrictions and regulations on everything we do, to try to stop temperatures from warming in the future.

But based on previous patterns, where do YOU expect temperatures to go from here?

Has Al Gore seen this chart?

 

[buckeye45_73]

Allowing people to be who they're is freedom. Of course, you want to force your bible on everyone, but act like you're all about small government...lol..what a joke.,

Yep having morals is so bad. Christians got rid of some really bad shit

 

[buckeye45_73]

Is around because of the electoral college.

I as a right winger couldnt make this shit up. The left is in complete meltdown

Everything is about power and short term goals, they are in for a really bad time unless they get their shit together.

The electoral college is thwarting our ability to battle global warming

Buckeye, I scanned your link and chuckled. MMGW is dead for the forseeable future, and the far leftists know it. The race is on my friend--------->what will happen 1st, Trump get the energy sector opened up which will have an effect on GREAT paying jobs along with the price of energy, or the midterms!

If he gets it open and expansion happens as regulations fall, the far left is done. Let me spell that for you leftists D-O-N-E!

They know this also. They can't let Reagan lite pull a Reagan, or all their rewriting of history will collapse, along with them regaining control of ANYTHING, any time soon. Expect a narrative shift every week from the left, to see what they can get to stick. Expect Trump to go to the people often as Reagan did, and if he handles it correctly, the left to become inconsequential rather quickly, certainly for 12 years as long as we stay out of war-)

Trump is NOT "Reagan Lite". He may be <something> lite, but he's done NOTHING to warrant the Reagan thing.

I don't know why you would be actually PROUD of defeating science. To me, that is just plain stupid.

No one is defeating science other than the frauds who are pushing AGW in an effort to enrich themselves and generate political control. When these clowns are gone science will recover quite nicely.

No, the methods being used against science don't have anything to do with science.

And, across the board, science is monumentally behind there being a significant human contribution to the climate change that is going on.

So, yes, you are gloating about defeating science.

Its not real science. Its all models that are incomplete at best and propaganda.

Science is provable, this is not

Al Gore predictions were a joke and untrue.

Hysteria over hurricane was hilarious since
there were very few in the last 10 years.

They take a tragedy like Katrina and said stores of the future, lefties tried to push laws, we said no and look no stores like that.

 

[WillReadmore]

Of course Global Climate Change exists.

And man has nothing to do with it.

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.

Manmade Global Warming has no factual backing whatsoever.

The people who say you should pay more tax money to help "fight global warming", are the same people who say you should pay your money for this fine bottle of snake oil that will cure all your ills. They are merely liars, charlatans, and con artists.

And this poll shows that 2/3 of Americans know exactly what these con artists are, and ignore them with the contempt they deserve.

Even the leftist loons who scream about how we have to use government to change everything, 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-PLUS 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.

Why don't you leftist fanatics go recruit adherents from the Flat Earth Society? You will find people of your mindset, in great numbers there.

Yes, climate HAS changed in the past. We learned that through ... SCIENCE!!! Without modeling, without analyzing gasses and strata in ice cores, without detecting the layers of volcanic dust that allows aging layers of ice and soil around the world, without balloons and then satellites measuring high altitude temperatures, etc., etc., we wouldn't know past temperatures.

Yet, after you accept THAT, you suddenly switch gears and suggest that science is garbage!!

So, which is it???

Is science garbage or is it for real?

You can't really have it both ways!

 

[WillReadmore]

This chart is made from data taken by scientists studying deep ice in Antarctica. It starts a little more than 400 million years ago. It shows estimated global temperatures, based on the best available data, compared to the temperatures we have nowadays.

Note the pattern.

Temperatures started around where they are today. Then they dropped rapidly, not the few tenths of a degree the present hysterics are telling us about, but going down 4 to 8 degrees C. And they stayed there for more than 60,000 years.

Then they rose suddenly, as much as 10 degrees C, but quickly dropped back down to the lower levels, and stayed low for another 80,000 years.

Then they rose again for a short time, but dropped back down and mostly stayed low for another 100,000 years.

Then they rose again briefly, but dropped back down and stayed low yet again for another 100,000 years.

Then they rose again, and have stayed for a brief period... which brings us to the present day.

Note that this repeated cycle, has happened over and over, without the hand of man going anywhere near the planet in any significant way. Would anyone like to support the idea that those greedy, wasteful humans were burning too much oil, a hundred thousand years ago when the previous peak occured? Maybe driving too many prehistoric SUVs two hundred thousand years ago? Maybe a jurassic Al Gore was chartering huge jets all over the world 300,000 years ago, warning his fellow humans back then about the dangers of THAT period of "global warming"?

Al Gore and the rest of his junk-science salesmen want us to believe that we will see temperatures getting warmer from where they are, with no end in sight. And he proposes massive government expenditures, massive programs, and huge government restrictions and regulations on everything we do, to try to stop temperatures from warming in the future.

But based on previous patterns, where do YOU expect temperatures to go from here?

Has Al Gore seen this chart?

Al Gore isn't a scientist.

And, again, YOU are promoting science - pretty darn sophisticated science at that, since there weren't any thermometers around 4M years ago. (You say 400M, but I think you just didn't read the chart correctly, right?)

THEN, you decide that the rest of science is garbage, I guess.

But, you haven't come up with any logical explanation for that.

How do you decide which NOAA scientists are good and which are bastards out to fool you?

 

[Little-Acorn]

Yet, after you accept THAT, you suddenly switch gears and suggest that science is garbage!!

(patiently)

No, I said that Al Gore's unsupported wishful thinking was garbage. No one has ever suggested it has anything to do with science. Aside from a few leftist loons such as yourself, of course.

Again:
Al Gore and the rest of his junk-science salesmen want us to believe that we will see temperatures getting warmer from where they are, with no end in sight. And he proposes massive government expenditures, massive programs, and huge government restrictions and regulations on everything we do, to try to stop temperatures from warming in the future.

But based on previous patterns, where do YOU expect temperatures to go from here?

Has Al Gore seen this chart?

 

[Little-Acorn]

Al Gore isn't a scientist.

Al Gore is not many things.

(You say 400M, but I think you just didn't read the chart correctly, right?)

(patiently)

You might try counting the zeros.

THEN, you decide that the rest of science is garbage, I guess.

You guess wrong, as usual.

But, you haven't come up with any logical explanation for that.

I have never come up with ANY explanation for why liberals are so wrong, so often, on so many subjects.

 

[ScienceRocks]

This chart is made from data taken by scientists studying deep ice in Antarctica. It starts a little more than 400 million years ago. It shows estimated global temperatures, based on the best available data, compared to the temperatures we have nowadays.

Note the pattern.

Temperatures started around where they are today. Then they dropped rapidly, not the few tenths of a degree the present hysterics are telling us about, but going down 4 to 8 degrees C. And they stayed there for more than 60,000 years.

Then they rose suddenly, as much as 10 degrees C, but quickly dropped back down to the lower levels, and stayed low for another 80,000 years.

Then they rose again for a short time, but dropped back down and mostly stayed low for another 100,000 years.

Then they rose again briefly, but dropped back down and stayed low yet again for another 100,000 years.

Then they rose again, and have stayed for a brief period... which brings us to the present day.

Note that this repeated cycle, has happened over and over, without the hand of man going anywhere near the planet in any significant way. Would anyone like to support the idea that those greedy, wasteful humans were burning too much oil, a hundred thousand years ago when the previous peak occured? Maybe driving too many prehistoric SUVs two hundred thousand years ago? Maybe a jurassic Al Gore was chartering huge jets all over the world 300,000 years ago, warning his fellow humans back then about the dangers of THAT period of "global warming"?

Al Gore and the rest of his junk-science salesmen want us to believe that we will see temperatures getting warmer from where they are, with no end in sight. And he proposes massive government expenditures, massive programs, and huge government restrictions and regulations on everything we do, to try to stop temperatures from warming in the future.

But based on previous patterns, where do YOU expect temperatures to go from here?

Has Al Gore seen this chart?

Al Gore isn't a scientist.

And, again, YOU are promoting science - pretty darn sophisticated science at that, since there weren't any thermometers around 4M years ago. (You say 400M, but I think you just didn't read the chart correctly, right?)

THEN, you decide that the rest of science is garbage, I guess.

But, you haven't come up with any logical explanation for that.

How do you decide which NOAA scientists are good and which are bastards out to fool you?

Liberterianism makes shit up! That is all it is based on...I am better then anyone else and that is the way it is.

Liberterianism is going to destroy this nation.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Liberterianism makes shit up! That is all it is based on...I am better then anyone else and that is the way it is.

TRANSLATION: Geez, we liberals are getting schlonged in every debate on this board! Quick, change the subject and attack someone who has nothing to do with what we were talking about! LOOK! LIBERTARIANS!! And tell some lies about what they do. Maybe someone will finally start believing us. PLEASE!

 

[westwall]

Nope. You are absolutely wrong on that count. The 93% nonsense is a bullshit meme that has been proven false repeatedly. Only those who profit from the AGW fraud,and the willfully ignorant pay that claim any heed. And for the record I AM a scientist. Unlike you.

No, you've got nothing to support your nonsense about science being divided on this issue in any way that is meaningful.

And, nobody is profiting from this. Ask Miami Beach if they are profiting. Ask NOLA if they are profiting. Ask those behind the Chesapeake bay plan if sea rise is profitable. Ask Russia if they are ready to give up on their new Arctic land acquisition petition to the UN that is based on climate change - was that profitable for us? Ask farmers in the central valley of CA if they're profiting. Ask Syria if the multi-year drought there, clearly exacerbated by climate change, was profitable - vs. our national security analysis that shows that as a cause of war there.

I just don't see you thinking yet. Defeating science is not profitable. Ever.

Ask yourself a simple question, if the threat was soooooooo grreat, why are there no draconian measures being pushed to control the global temps? Hmm? Why is the only plan to enact a carbon tax that allows you to keep on polluting, you just have to pay the wealthy elite for the privilege.

If you're so smart you tell me why that is a fact.

??? It's because we have IDIOTS in congress and Republicans everywhere wanting us to buy and use fossil fuel as fast as possible. BigOil, BigCoal, etc., are making billions on this, and they're working hard to protect their gigantic revenue being made from resources that belong to you and me as much as to them.

Taxes are one method America has for influencing behavior. We also have other methods, such as regulations, prohibitions, tort, etc.

Taxes don't go to the wealthy elite. A federal tax on fuel would undoubtedly go to the general fund, where it would offset taxes collected from our income - that is, we could lower income taxes at the same time we raise fuel taxes in a way that is revenue neutral.

In UK, for example, taxes on fuel are higher than the cost of the gas itself. But, that money offsets taxes that would be collected from income, so an individual who is careful of gas use will end up paying the government LESS tax overall.

Done correctly, taxes on carbon use are likely to be a significant reduction in impact on our climate while being as small as possible impact on our overall taxes.

Let's remember that essentially ALL other nations have fuel taxes that are MANY times as high as ours, yet their economies aren't dying.

These claims of carbon tax catastrophe are political BS.

Let us know how a carbon tax is going to prevent pollution. It's a simple question. Answer it.

A tax on carbon would encourage investments in alternative energy that is carbon free.

It would also encourage moves toward greater energy efficiency. For example, better insulation, more efficient equipment, etc. Every watt of electricity saved is the same as creating a new watt.

And, again, if carbon tax revenues are used to reduce income tax revenues, we end up being further rewarded for finding efficiencies. We end up with a way that we can reduce our own taxes!

Plus, products and services that require fossil fuel can still be provided - it's not a regulation against a particular process. It's just a pressure in one consistent direction.

All of which take years to decades. The desire to alter the energy systems of the globe will cost 76 trillion dollars (according to THEIR estimate (( http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/wess_current/2011wess.pdf )). Guess who gets to pay for that. You do. So, either they are lying about the imminence of the threat, or they truly have no clue what they are talking about.

Either way the poor and middle class get screwed and the wealthiest of the one percenters laugh all the way to the bank.

 

[westwall]

Of course Global Climate Change exists.

And man has nothing to do with it.

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.

Manmade Global Warming has no factual backing whatsoever.

The people who say you should pay more tax money to help "fight global warming", are the same people who say you should pay your money for this fine bottle of snake oil that will cure all your ills. They are merely liars, charlatans, and con artists.

And this poll shows that 2/3 of Americans know exactly what these con artists are, and ignore them with the contempt they deserve.

Even the leftist loons who scream about how we have to use government to change everything, 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-PLUS 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.

Why don't you leftist fanatics go recruit adherents from the Flat Earth Society? You will find people of your mindset, in great numbers there.

Yes, climate HAS changed in the past. We learned that through ... SCIENCE!!! Without modeling, without analyzing gasses and strata in ice cores, without detecting the layers of volcanic dust that allows aging layers of ice and soil around the world, without balloons and then satellites measuring high altitude temperatures, etc., etc., we wouldn't know past temperatures.

Yet, after you accept THAT, you suddenly switch gears and suggest that science is garbage!!

So, which is it???

Is science garbage or is it for real?

You can't really have it both ways!

Science is real. Global warming "science" based over 95% on computer derived fiction. Is not.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

4-5 feet of sea level rise in southern Florida would make most of southern florida be gone. Considering it is rising twice as fast as the globe...

Well, that wouldn't be hard..

You deny real SCIENCE in favor of computer models.

Despite fluctuations down as well as up, "the sea is not rising," he says. "It hasn't risen in 50 years." If there is any rise this century it will "not be more than 10cm (four inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10cm". And quite apart from examining the hard evidence, he says, the elementary laws of physics (latent heat needed to melt ice) tell us that the apocalypse conjured up by
Al Gore and Co could not possibly come about.

The reason why Dr Mörner, formerly a Stockholm professor, is so certain that these claims about sea level rise are 100 per cent wrong is that they are all based on computer model predictions, whereas his findings are based on "going into the field to observe what is actually happening in the real world".
Rise of sea levels is 'the greatest lie ever told'

 

[Frankeneinstein]

And I am tired of spending trillions in war and half a trillion on the military every year! I'd rather spend that money on science, education and infrastructure.

Misdirection! MMGW is not supported, now that the MSM has been proven to be biased.

No such proof of "bias" exists.

If you think it does, then cite what it is that you think defeats climatologists around the world.

The end of their funding

 

[owebo]

Of course Global Climate Change exists.

And man has nothing to do with it.

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.

Manmade Global Warming has no factual backing whatsoever.

The people who say you should pay more tax money to help "fight global warming", are the same people who say you should pay your money for this fine bottle of snake oil that will cure all your ills. They are merely liars, charlatans, and con artists.

And this poll shows that 2/3 of Americans know exactly what these con artists are, and ignore them with the contempt they deserve.

Even the leftist loons who scream about how we have to use government to change everything, 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-PLUS 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.

Why don't you leftist fanatics go recruit adherents from the Flat Earth Society? You will find people of your mindset, in great numbers there.

Yes, climate HAS changed in the past. We learned that through ... SCIENCE!!! Without modeling, without analyzing gasses and strata in ice cores, without detecting the layers of volcanic dust that allows aging layers of ice and soil around the world, without balloons and then satellites measuring high altitude temperatures, etc., etc., we wouldn't know past temperatures.

Yet, after you accept THAT, you suddenly switch gears and suggest that science is garbage!!

So, which is it???

Is science garbage or is it for real?

You can't really have it both ways!

Your settled science is garbage....

You can't have it both ways....