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.
No way you skate that easily away on this one. ABC vetted ALLL those predictions from the hysterical MAYBEs and COULDs and MIGHTs that they found in the climate science literature and IPCC executive summaries. Do u really think they invented those claims? Are u that naive?
ABC NEWS is not a peer reviewed scientific organization, and neither is Newsbusters. Moreover, I find it dishonest in the extreme for you people to whine about the credibility of the msm media wrt climate change, and then pretend that it actually has credibility when you want to use its reports against the actual science.
All scientists hedge their bets when making conclusions. In that respect, they are far more conservative than any of you deniers.
So lemme get this straight. You are not concerned that what the public has been told about Global Warming has been exaggerated as part of a socio political agenda. And that i cant hold one of top 3 news orgs in this country responsible for MA GLING AND MISREPRESENTING the science in order to panic the herd?
you are such a tool.....
I am concerned that people like you try to use populous reporting as if it has scientific merit against what the actual science says. You might as well try to use Pat Robertson's rants about nuking Washington as an example of outstanding public policy. The fact of the matter is that if you actually wanted to report on what science is actually predicting, you would have used your alleged PhD brains and reported on what the scientists are actually saying. But you didn't do that. Which just proves what we have said all along about you - that you are a liar.
That's pretty strong words there pardner. To call me a liar that is. The desperation is showing. And you are not getting this. This thread is NOT about the science. It is a pile of monumental evidence for the "denier" claim that the AGW crazy train is actually a socio-political movement.
Oh the message is loud and clear. Instead of being professional and discussing environmental science in a forum on the environment, you have chosen to make a political rant, one which is better served in the politics forum where it belongs.
ABC NEWS is not a peer reviewed scientific organization, and neither is Newsbusters. Moreover, I find it dishonest in the extreme for you people to whine about the credibility of the msm media wrt climate change, and then pretend that it actually has credibility when you want to use its reports against the actual science.
All scientists hedge their bets when making conclusions. In that respect, they are far more conservative than any of you deniers.
So lemme get this straight. You are not concerned that what the public has been told about Global Warming has been exaggerated as part of a socio political agenda. And that i cant hold one of top 3 news orgs in this country responsible for MA GLING AND MISREPRESENTING the science in order to panic the herd?
you are such a tool.....
I am concerned that people like you try to use populous reporting as if it has scientific merit against what the actual science says. You might as well try to use Pat Robertson's rants about nuking Washington as an example of outstanding public policy. The fact of the matter is that if you actually wanted to report on what science is actually predicting, you would have used your alleged PhD brains and reported on what the scientists are actually saying. But you didn't do that. Which just proves what we have said all along about you - that you are a liar.
That's pretty strong words there pardner. To call me a liar that is. The desperation is showing. And you are not getting this. This thread is NOT about the science. It is a pile of monumental evidence for the "denier" claim that the AGW crazy train is actually a socio-political movement.
Oh the message is loud and clear. Instead of being professional and discussing environmental science in a forum on the environment, you have chosen to make a political rant, one which is better served in the politics forum where it belongs.
So you HAVE chosen to deny that AGW is a socio-politically driven movement? THAT definitely belongs in the forum until such time that we can reverse the massive brainwashing job done on the public (for their own good of course) that was aided by the complicity of some lazy assed grant seekers.
So lemme get this straight. You are not concerned that what the public has been told about Global Warming has been exaggerated as part of a socio political agenda. And that i cant hold one of top 3 news orgs in this country responsible for MA GLING AND MISREPRESENTING the science in order to panic the herd?
you are such a tool.....
I am concerned that people like you try to use populous reporting as if it has scientific merit against what the actual science says. You might as well try to use Pat Robertson's rants about nuking Washington as an example of outstanding public policy. The fact of the matter is that if you actually wanted to report on what science is actually predicting, you would have used your alleged PhD brains and reported on what the scientists are actually saying. But you didn't do that. Which just proves what we have said all along about you - that you are a liar.
That's pretty strong words there pardner. To call me a liar that is. The desperation is showing. And you are not getting this. This thread is NOT about the science. It is a pile of monumental evidence for the "denier" claim that the AGW crazy train is actually a socio-political movement.
Oh the message is loud and clear. Instead of being professional and discussing environmental science in a forum on the environment, you have chosen to make a political rant, one which is better served in the politics forum where it belongs.
So you HAVE chosen to deny that AGW is a socio-politically driven movement? THAT definitely belongs in the forum until such time that we can reverse the massive brainwashing job done on the public (for their own good of course) that was aided by the complicity of some lazy assed grant seekers.
AGW is driven by the science. What needs to be done about it has to involve our leaders making decision, and that's where the politics come in.
).
I am concerned that people like you try to use populous reporting as if it has scientific merit against what the actual science says. You might as well try to use Pat Robertson's rants about nuking Washington as an example of outstanding public policy. The fact of the matter is that if you actually wanted to report on what science is actually predicting, you would have used your alleged PhD brains and reported on what the scientists are actually saying. But you didn't do that. Which just proves what we have said all along about you - that you are a liar.
That's pretty strong words there pardner. To call me a liar that is. The desperation is showing. And you are not getting this. This thread is NOT about the science. It is a pile of monumental evidence for the "denier" claim that the AGW crazy train is actually a socio-political movement.
Oh the message is loud and clear. Instead of being professional and discussing environmental science in a forum on the environment, you have chosen to make a political rant, one which is better served in the politics forum where it belongs.
So you HAVE chosen to deny that AGW is a socio-politically driven movement? THAT definitely belongs in the forum until such time that we can reverse the massive brainwashing job done on the public (for their own good of course) that was aided by the complicity of some lazy assed grant seekers.
AGW is driven by the science. What needs to be done about it has to involve our leaders making decision, and that's where the politics come in.
Well you are not a liar. But you are either extremely naive or dense.
What role does the MAJOR media play in a scientific debate that DEPENDS upon political support NOT SCIENCE for it's survival??
Do you actually believe that Nancy Pelosi's or Barack Obama's understanding of AGW exceeds the drama and the fear in that ABC exaggeration? News agencies have fired folks for much less. WHY would they risk credibility if they didn't believe their "news documentary" was based on sound science?
Dead assed wrong! The science is driven by AGW. What needs to be done is to stop fucking with the data. That's where the fraud comes from.So lemme get this straight. You are not concerned that what the public has been told about Global Warming has been exaggerated as part of a socio political agenda. And that i cant hold one of top 3 news orgs in this country responsible for MA GLING AND MISREPRESENTING the science in order to panic the herd?
you are such a tool.....
I am concerned that people like you try to use populous reporting as if it has scientific merit against what the actual science says. You might as well try to use Pat Robertson's rants about nuking Washington as an example of outstanding public policy. The fact of the matter is that if you actually wanted to report on what science is actually predicting, you would have used your alleged PhD brains and reported on what the scientists are actually saying. But you didn't do that. Which just proves what we have said all along about you - that you are a liar.
That's pretty strong words there pardner. To call me a liar that is. The desperation is showing. And you are not getting this. This thread is NOT about the science. It is a pile of monumental evidence for the "denier" claim that the AGW crazy train is actually a socio-political movement.
Oh the message is loud and clear. Instead of being professional and discussing environmental science in a forum on the environment, you have chosen to make a political rant, one which is better served in the politics forum where it belongs.
So you HAVE chosen to deny that AGW is a socio-politically driven movement? THAT definitely belongs in the forum until such time that we can reverse the massive brainwashing job done on the public (for their own good of course) that was aided by the complicity of some lazy assed grant seekers.
AGW is driven by the science. What needs to be done about it has to involve our leaders making decision, and that's where the politics come in.
So lemme get this straight. You are not concerned that what the public has been told about Global Warming has been exaggerated as part of a socio political agenda. And that i cant hold one of top 3 news orgs in this country responsible for MA GLING AND MISREPRESENTING the science in order to panic the herd?
you are such a tool.....
I am concerned that people like you try to use populous reporting as if it has scientific merit against what the actual science says. You might as well try to use Pat Robertson's rants about nuking Washington as an example of outstanding public policy. The fact of the matter is that if you actually wanted to report on what science is actually predicting, you would have used your alleged PhD brains and reported on what the scientists are actually saying. But you didn't do that. Which just proves what we have said all along about you - that you are a liar.
That's pretty strong words there pardner. To call me a liar that is. The desperation is showing. And you are not getting this. This thread is NOT about the science. It is a pile of monumental evidence for the "denier" claim that the AGW crazy train is actually a socio-political movement.
Oh the message is loud and clear. Instead of being professional and discussing environmental science in a forum on the environment, you have chosen to make a political rant, one which is better served in the politics forum where it belongs.
So you HAVE chosen to deny that AGW is a socio-politically driven movement? THAT definitely belongs in the forum until such time that we can reverse the massive brainwashing job done on the public (for their own good of course) that was aided by the complicity of some lazy assed grant seekers.
[/URL]
[/URL]
Chicken Little progs...always touting the next piece of sky falling on us.FLASHBACK: ABC's ’08 Prediction: NYC Under Water from Climate Change By June 2015
New York City underwater? Gas over $9 a gallon? A carton of milk costs almost $13? Welcome to June 12, 2015. Or at least that was the wildly-inaccurate version of 2015 predicted by ABC News exactly seven years ago. Appearing on Good Morning America in 2008, Bob Woodruff hyped Earth 2100, a special that pushed apocalyptic predictions of the then-futuristic 2015. The segment included supposedly prophetic videos, such as a teenager declaring, "It's June 8th, 2015. One carton of milk is $12.99." (On the actual June 8, 2015, a gallon of milk cost, on average, $3.39.) Another clip featured this prediction for the current year: "Gas reached over $9 a gallon." (In reality, gas costs an average of $2.75.)
FLASHBACK ABC s 08 Prediction NYC Under Water from Climate Change By June 2015
Typical liberal FEAR MONGERING. You must hand over your rights and freedoms to us or the world will end. Unfortunately, there are dupes that believe this rot.
Most of us know it's just that, FEAR MONGERING.
Remember the predictions of the first Earth Day 1970?
13 Most Ridiculous Predictions Made on Earth Day, 1970 13 Most Ridiculous Predictions Made on Earth Day 1970 Ricochet
NONE OF IT HAPPENED! This is why I went from believing all this rot in 1970 (when I was 9) to being a complete cynic on it. It NEVER happens. They predict the sky will fall and it never happens. Oh but they make money predicting gloom and doom, and they get power!
- “Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” — Harvard biologist George Wald
- “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.” — Washington University biologist Barry Commoner
- “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.” — New York Times editorial
- “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.” — Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich
- “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born… [By 1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.” — Paul Ehrlich
- “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” — Denis Hayes, Chief organizer for Earth Day
- “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions…. By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.” — North Texas State University professor Peter Gunter
- “In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution… by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half.” — Life magazine
- “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.” — Ecologist Kenneth Watt
- “Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” — Paul Ehrlich
- “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate… that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, ‘Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, ‘I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’” — Ecologist Kenneth Watt
- “[One] theory assumes that the earth’s cloud cover will continue to thicken as more dust, fumes, and water vapor are belched into the atmosphere by industrial smokestacks and jet planes. Screened from the sun’s heat, the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born.” — Newsweekmagazine
- “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.” — Kenneth Watt
That's what it is all about. WHEN will people start figuring that out. I can't believe I'm the only person with a brain.
Dead assed wrong! The science is driven by AGW. What needs to be done is to stop fucking with the data. That's where the fraud comes from.I am concerned that people like you try to use populous reporting as if it has scientific merit against what the actual science says. You might as well try to use Pat Robertson's rants about nuking Washington as an example of outstanding public policy. The fact of the matter is that if you actually wanted to report on what science is actually predicting, you would have used your alleged PhD brains and reported on what the scientists are actually saying. But you didn't do that. Which just proves what we have said all along about you - that you are a liar.
That's pretty strong words there pardner. To call me a liar that is. The desperation is showing. And you are not getting this. This thread is NOT about the science. It is a pile of monumental evidence for the "denier" claim that the AGW crazy train is actually a socio-political movement.
Oh the message is loud and clear. Instead of being professional and discussing environmental science in a forum on the environment, you have chosen to make a political rant, one which is better served in the politics forum where it belongs.
So you HAVE chosen to deny that AGW is a socio-politically driven movement? THAT definitely belongs in the forum until such time that we can reverse the massive brainwashing job done on the public (for their own good of course) that was aided by the complicity of some lazy assed grant seekers.
AGW is driven by the science. What needs to be done about it has to involve our leaders making decision, and that's where the politics come in.
That wasn't "liberals". That was tea-party loving Bob Woodruff on the very conservative ABC network. So, another failure of our conservative media, it would seem.
Given that actual climate science has been so spot-on correct, yelling about Bob Woodruff or what some nobody said in 1970 is the best deniers can do now. That's why global warming science has such credibility, because it's been getting everything right for decades. In contrast, all the deniers here are total 'effin retards, reduced to yammering idiot conspiracy theories about a vast secret global socialist conspiracy.
So deniers, how does it feel to have the whole planet constantly laughing at you? It's not going to get any better. I hope the emotional affirmation you get from your fellow cultists is worth the lifetime of humiliation you've signed on for.
I can't remember how many times I have said right here on this forum how much the pants shitting, fearmonger, pessimistic whining right wingers around here remind me of the liberals of the 70s.FLASHBACK: ABC's ’08 Prediction: NYC Under Water from Climate Change By June 2015
New York City underwater? Gas over $9 a gallon? A carton of milk costs almost $13? Welcome to June 12, 2015. Or at least that was the wildly-inaccurate version of 2015 predicted by ABC News exactly seven years ago. Appearing on Good Morning America in 2008, Bob Woodruff hyped Earth 2100, a special that pushed apocalyptic predictions of the then-futuristic 2015. The segment included supposedly prophetic videos, such as a teenager declaring, "It's June 8th, 2015. One carton of milk is $12.99." (On the actual June 8, 2015, a gallon of milk cost, on average, $3.39.) Another clip featured this prediction for the current year: "Gas reached over $9 a gallon." (In reality, gas costs an average of $2.75.)
FLASHBACK ABC s 08 Prediction NYC Under Water from Climate Change By June 2015
Typical liberal FEAR MONGERING. You must hand over your rights and freedoms to us or the world will end. Unfortunately, there are dupes that believe this rot.
Most of us know it's just that, FEAR MONGERING.
Remember the predictions of the first Earth Day 1970?
13 Most Ridiculous Predictions Made on Earth Day, 1970 13 Most Ridiculous Predictions Made on Earth Day 1970 Ricochet
NONE OF IT HAPPENED! This is why I went from believing all this rot in 1970 (when I was 9) to being a complete cynic on it. It NEVER happens. They predict the sky will fall and it never happens. Oh but they make money predicting gloom and doom, and they get power!
- “Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” — Harvard biologist George Wald
- “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.” — Washington University biologist Barry Commoner
- “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.” — New York Times editorial
- “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.” — Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich
- “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born… [By 1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.” — Paul Ehrlich
- “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” — Denis Hayes, Chief organizer for Earth Day
- “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions…. By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.” — North Texas State University professor Peter Gunter
- “In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution… by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half.” — Life magazine
- “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.” — Ecologist Kenneth Watt
- “Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” — Paul Ehrlich
- “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate… that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, ‘Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, ‘I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’” — Ecologist Kenneth Watt
- “[One] theory assumes that the earth’s cloud cover will continue to thicken as more dust, fumes, and water vapor are belched into the atmosphere by industrial smokestacks and jet planes. Screened from the sun’s heat, the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born.” — Newsweekmagazine
- “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.” — Kenneth Watt
That's what it is all about. WHEN will people start figuring that out. I can't believe I'm the only person with a brain.
Back then, it was the liberals who were always emitting a high-pitched whine, and shrieking doom and gloom. It was the Right which was optimistic. Reagan was famous for his optimism.
Now the Right has inherited much of the bigots who used to live in the Democratic camp, and most of the whiners.
“In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution… by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half.” — Life magazine
I picked this one at random from the list and decided to fact check it.
You can find that prediction on page 22 of this link.
Here is another one from that same Life Magazine piece:
I find it ammusing how righties are alarmists about national security, and lefties are alarmists about the environment.
The bad part is...in both cases...that by the time alarmists might be proven right, it'll be too late
Always a gamble
Top story on DRUDGE right now >>>>
'08 Prediction: NYC Under Water From 'Climate Change' By June 2015!
FLASHBACK ABC s 08 Prediction NYC Under Water from Climate Change By June 2015
Listen.........for browsers of the ENVIRONMENT forum........need to know we have a handful of complete mental cases in here. These phonies jump on every single alarmist/end of the world global warming scientist prediction, most of which fall and explode like a SCUD missile!!!
But hey......I get that some people are compelled to embrace the hysterical in life ALL THE TIME!!!
Well if thats you..........go......go.......go!!! But a huge % arent caring ( supported by numerous polls posted up all over this forum ). Perhaps some just need to be eccentric. I cant help you!!!
ABC News is not a valid source of scientific predictions. Neither is newsbusters. Next.
Top story on DRUDGE right now >>>>
'08 Prediction: NYC Under Water From 'Climate Change' By June 2015!
FLASHBACK ABC s 08 Prediction NYC Under Water from Climate Change By June 2015
Listen.........for browsers of the ENVIRONMENT forum........need to know we have a handful of complete mental cases in here. These phonies jump on every single alarmist/end of the world global warming scientist prediction, most of which fall and explode like a SCUD missile!!!
But hey......I get that some people are compelled to embrace the hysterical in life ALL THE TIME!!!
Well if thats you..........go......go.......go!!! But a huge % arent caring ( supported by numerous polls posted up all over this forum ). Perhaps some just need to be eccentric. I cant help you!!!
ABC News is not a valid source of scientific predictions. Neither is newsbusters. Next.
No way you skate that easily away on this one. ABC vetted ALLL those predictions from the hysterical MAYBEs and COULDs and MIGHTs that they found in the climate science literature and IPCC executive summaries. Do u really think they invented those claims? Are u that naive?
ABC NEWS is not a peer reviewed scientific organization, and neither is Newsbusters. Moreover, I find it dishonest in the extreme for you people to whine about the credibility of the msm media wrt climate change, and then pretend that it actually has credibility when you want to use its reports against the actual science.
All scientists hedge their bets when making conclusions. In that respect, they are far more conservative than any of you deniers.
since you can't STOP the source of human problems, why bother to argue about it? the main problem is that people will NOT stop having kids that they can't afford to raise properly. Many areas have 1000x as much population as their resources can support. So of COURSE everyone in such areas are miserable. wake UP
