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.
Tell me to what degree there is manmade global warming. Give us the data, the science is settled according to you moonbats. Tell us why the Glacier Bay glacier receded 60 miles in the 1800's before the industrial revolution and why Mars polar caps are melting since the science is settled.Learn to read. The 93% of scientists rant is pure bullshit.Why does your agenda require you to lie?"As is the case with other ‘surveys’ alleging an overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, the question surveyed had absolutely nothing to do with the issues of contention between global warming alarmists and global warming skeptics. The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming. The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action".Why does the agenda of you doomsdayers require you to always lie?
Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims
So your only objection is to the "degree" of harm humans are causing while you concede that humans are impacting global warming
Your source which says
"because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have cause some global warming"
Seems to conflict with the lock step denial of our USMB apologists as well as the Republican Party which denies it completly
?
Why does your agenda require you to lie?
Evidently not.....when even your own link concedes there is manmade global warming
The only question is to what degree
Tell me to what degree there is manmade global warming. Give us the data, the science is settled according to you moonbats. Tell us why the Glacier Bay glacier receded 60 miles in the 1800's before the industrial revolution and why Mars polar caps are melting since the science is settled.Learn to read. The 93% of scientists rant is pure bullshit.Why does your agenda require you to lie?"As is the case with other ‘surveys’ alleging an overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, the question surveyed had absolutely nothing to do with the issues of contention between global warming alarmists and global warming skeptics. The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming. The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action".
So your only objection is to the "degree" of harm humans are causing while you concede that humans are impacting global warming
Your source which says
"because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have cause some global warming"
Seems to conflict with the lock step denial of our USMB apologists as well as the Republican Party which denies it completly
?
Why does your agenda require you to lie?
Evidently not.....when even your own link concedes there is manmade global warming
The only question is to what degree
Tell me to what degree there is manmade global warming. Give us the data, the science is settled according to you moonbats. Tell us why the Glacier Bay glacier receded 60 miles in the 1800's before the industrial revolution and why Mars polar caps are melting since the science is settled.Learn to read. The 93% of scientists rant is pure bullshit.Why does your agenda require you to lie?"As is the case with other ‘surveys’ alleging an overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, the question surveyed had absolutely nothing to do with the issues of contention between global warming alarmists and global warming skeptics. The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming. The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action".
So your only objection is to the "degree" of harm humans are causing while you concede that humans are impacting global warming
Your source which says
"because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have cause some global warming"
Seems to conflict with the lock step denial of our USMB apologists as well as the Republican Party which denies it completly
?
Why does your agenda require you to lie?
Evidently not.....when even your own link concedes there is manmade global warming
The only question is to what degree
Tell me to what degree there is manmade global warming. Give us the data, the science is settled according to you moonbats. Tell us why the Glacier Bay glacier receded 60 miles in the 1800's before the industrial revolution and why Mars polar caps are melting since the science is settled.Learn to read. The 93% of scientists rant is pure bullshit.Why does your agenda require you to lie?
?
Why does your agenda require you to lie?
Evidently not.....when even your own link concedes there is manmade global warming
The only question is to what degree
We are talking about the Earth...the whole Earth
What happened at one glacier 200 years ago does not represent a trend. Neither does the Mars climate
So you have no answer.Tell me to what degree there is manmade global warming. Give us the data, the science is settled according to you moonbats. Tell us why the Glacier Bay glacier receded 60 miles in the 1800's before the industrial revolution and why Mars polar caps are melting since the science is settled.Learn to read. The 93% of scientists rant is pure bullshit.Why does your agenda require you to lie?
?
Why does your agenda require you to lie?
Evidently not.....when even your own link concedes there is manmade global warming
The only question is to what degree
We are talking about the Earth...the whole Earth
What happened at one glacier 200 years ago does not represent a trend. Neither does the Mars climate
So you have no answer.Tell me to what degree there is manmade global warming. Give us the data, the science is settled according to you moonbats. Tell us why the Glacier Bay glacier receded 60 miles in the 1800's before the industrial revolution and why Mars polar caps are melting since the science is settled.Learn to read. The 93% of scientists rant is pure bullshit.
Why does your agenda require you to lie?
Evidently not.....when even your own link concedes there is manmade global warming
The only question is to what degree
We are talking about the Earth...the whole Earth
What happened at one glacier 200 years ago does not represent a trend. Neither does the Mars climate
Since when does settled science have no answer?
Learn to read. The 93% of scientists rant is pure bullshit.
Why does your agenda require you to lie?
Evidently not.....when even your own link concedes there is manmade global warming
The only question is to what degree
WRONG !. What it concludes is that there is man made pollution. The link between pollution and warming has never been proven.
But, once again, why do you need that link? Why not just campaign to reduce pollution? That's your real issue isn't it? or is the real issue finding ways to control behavior that YOU don't like? Think, before answering, and try to be truthful.
"As is the case with other ‘surveys’ alleging an overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, the question surveyed had absolutely nothing to do with the issues of contention between global warming alarmists and global warming skeptics. The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming. The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action".
the link between man made pollution and global warming is based on a THEORY. It is based on computer models that were created using that same THEORY. Nothing in the AGW religion is based on proven climate history, atmospheric history, ice core history, carbon dating, or any other proven method. it is all theory.
But please tell me why you need the link between pollution and climate in order to tackle the real problem of manmade pollution. Not one of you flaming warmers has even attempted to answer that.
Tell me to what degree there is manmade global warming. Give us the data, the science is settled according to you moonbats. Tell us why the Glacier Bay glacier receded 60 miles in the 1800's before the industrial revolution and why Mars polar caps are melting since the science is settled.Learn to read. The 93% of scientists rant is pure bullshit.
Why does your agenda require you to lie?
Evidently not.....when even your own link concedes there is manmade global warming
The only question is to what degree
We are talking about the Earth...the whole Earth
What happened at one glacier 200 years ago does not represent a trend. Neither does the Mars climate
and you members of the AGW religion are telling us that you can measure the temperature of the "whole earth" to .2 of a degree?
come on RW, even you aren't that dumb.
Just by liberals screaming it's hot in the summer....Learn to read. The 93% of scientists rant is pure bullshit.
Why does your agenda require you to lie?
Evidently not.....when even your own link concedes there is manmade global warming
The only question is to what degree
WRONG !. What it concludes is that there is man made pollution. The link between pollution and warming has never been proven.
But, once again, why do you need that link? Why not just campaign to reduce pollution? That's your real issue isn't it? or is the real issue finding ways to control behavior that YOU don't like? Think, before answering, and try to be truthful.
"As is the case with other ‘surveys’ alleging an overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, the question surveyed had absolutely nothing to do with the issues of contention between global warming alarmists and global warming skeptics. The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming. The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action".
the link between man made pollution and global warming is based on a THEORY. It is based on computer models that were created using that same THEORY. Nothing in the AGW religion is based on proven climate history, atmospheric history, ice core history, carbon dating, or any other proven method. it is all theory.
But please tell me why you need the link between pollution and climate in order to tackle the real problem of manmade pollution. Not one of you flaming warmers has even attempted to answer that.
That is not how theories are validated. It is an extensive process using various scientific models and calculations
The way a scientific theory is NOT validated is by some rightwing radio host screaming that it snows in the winter so there cannot be any global warming
Your comrade Crick says the science behind manmade global warming must be kept secret from the public.Learn to read. The 93% of scientists rant is pure bullshit.
Why does your agenda require you to lie?
Evidently not.....when even your own link concedes there is manmade global warming
The only question is to what degree
WRONG !. What it concludes is that there is man made pollution. The link between pollution and warming has never been proven.
But, once again, why do you need that link? Why not just campaign to reduce pollution? That's your real issue isn't it? or is the real issue finding ways to control behavior that YOU don't like? Think, before answering, and try to be truthful.
"As is the case with other ‘surveys’ alleging an overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, the question surveyed had absolutely nothing to do with the issues of contention between global warming alarmists and global warming skeptics. The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming. The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action".
the link between man made pollution and global warming is based on a THEORY. It is based on computer models that were created using that same THEORY. Nothing in the AGW religion is based on proven climate history, atmospheric history, ice core history, carbon dating, or any other proven method. it is all theory.
But please tell me why you need the link between pollution and climate in order to tackle the real problem of manmade pollution. Not one of you flaming warmers has even attempted to answer that.
That is not how theories are validated. It is an extensive process using various scientific models and calculations
The way a scientific theory is NOT validated is by some rightwing radio host screaming that it snows in the winter so there cannot be any global warming
Fusion (an energy with a future).I will ask it again. If the left had their wet dream and drilling and the use of oil was completely banned......
Wait...
Is that the real wet dream. No more power at all?
Can they articulate what exactly they want?
Ever? Seriously. Just let one of them explain it to us.
I am asking please. Pretty please?
Learn to read. The 93% of scientists rant is pure bullshit.Why does your agenda require you to lie?
?
Why does your agenda require you to lie?
Evidently not.....when even your own link concedes there is manmade global warming
The only question is to what degree
WRONG !. What it concludes is that there is man made pollution. The link between pollution and warming has never been proven.
But, once again, why do you need that link? Why not just campaign to reduce pollution? That's your real issue isn't it? or is the real issue finding ways to control behavior that YOU don't like? Think, before answering, and try to be truthful.
"As is the case with other ‘surveys’ alleging an overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, the question surveyed had absolutely nothing to do with the issues of contention between global warming alarmists and global warming skeptics. The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming. The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action".
It is obvious man is changing the weather ......... measurements. Weather stations located at what was a cow pasture now a concrete jungle is of course going to change weather readings to a higher value.Tell me to what degree there is manmade global warming. Give us the data, the science is settled according to you moonbats. Tell us why the Glacier Bay glacier receded 60 miles in the 1800's before the industrial revolution and why Mars polar caps are melting since the science is settled.Learn to read. The 93% of scientists rant is pure bullshit.
Why does your agenda require you to lie?
Evidently not.....when even your own link concedes there is manmade global warming
The only question is to what degree
We are talking about the Earth...the whole Earth
What happened at one glacier 200 years ago does not represent a trend. Neither does the Mars climate
and you members of the AGW religion are telling us that you can measure the temperature of the "whole earth" to .2 of a degree?
come on RW, even you aren't that dumb.
Why not?
Scientific measurements can be taken much closer than .2 degrees. You can sample locations around the world to make determinations on global climate
Your comrade Crick says the science behind manmade global warming must be kept secret from the public.Evidently not.....when even your own link concedes there is manmade global warming
The only question is to what degree
WRONG !. What it concludes is that there is man made pollution. The link between pollution and warming has never been proven.
But, once again, why do you need that link? Why not just campaign to reduce pollution? That's your real issue isn't it? or is the real issue finding ways to control behavior that YOU don't like? Think, before answering, and try to be truthful.
"As is the case with other ‘surveys’ alleging an overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, the question surveyed had absolutely nothing to do with the issues of contention between global warming alarmists and global warming skeptics. The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming. The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action".
the link between man made pollution and global warming is based on a THEORY. It is based on computer models that were created using that same THEORY. Nothing in the AGW religion is based on proven climate history, atmospheric history, ice core history, carbon dating, or any other proven method. it is all theory.
But please tell me why you need the link between pollution and climate in order to tackle the real problem of manmade pollution. Not one of you flaming warmers has even attempted to answer that.
That is not how theories are validated. It is an extensive process using various scientific models and calculations
The way a scientific theory is NOT validated is by some rightwing radio host screaming that it snows in the winter so there cannot be any global warming
Obama Attacked His Own Scientists to Push Manmade Gorebal Warming Myth
Why is it that manmade global warming "science" works like that?
It is obvious man is changing the weather ......... measurements. Weather stations located at what was a cow pasture now a concrete jungle is of course going to change weather readings to a higher value.Tell me to what degree there is manmade global warming. Give us the data, the science is settled according to you moonbats. Tell us why the Glacier Bay glacier receded 60 miles in the 1800's before the industrial revolution and why Mars polar caps are melting since the science is settled.Evidently not.....when even your own link concedes there is manmade global warming
The only question is to what degree
We are talking about the Earth...the whole Earth
What happened at one glacier 200 years ago does not represent a trend. Neither does the Mars climate
and you members of the AGW religion are telling us that you can measure the temperature of the "whole earth" to .2 of a degree?
come on RW, even you aren't that dumb.
Why not?
Scientific measurements can be taken much closer than .2 degrees. You can sample locations around the world to make determinations on global climate
New study of NOAA's U.S. Climate Network shows a lower 30-year temperature trend when high quality temperature stations unperturbed by urbanization are considered - 2015 AGU Fall Meeting
View attachment 103286
View attachment 103287
View attachment 103288
View attachment 103289
View attachment 103290
View attachment 103291
Well walk your talk then, and don't expect anyone else to Believe your cult of "global warming"....Tell your high priests Big Ears and Fat Albert to curtail their energy use and let us know their response.Why is everything so binary with conservatives?I will ask it again. If the left had their wet dream and drilling and the use of oil was completely banned......
Wait...
Is that the real wet dream. No more power at all?
Can they articulate what exactly they want?
Ever? Seriously. Just let one of them explain it to us.
I am asking please. Pretty please?
It has to be burn all the oil and coal you want or completely ban oil and coal
Why is the concept of curtailing your emissions and opening opportunities for alternative energy so difficult to grasp?
Again, you are full of shit
We are looking at a ten percent reduction in carbon emissions. It is not the end of the world.....unless you have all your money invested in oil
Science invalidates MANMADE global warming.It is obvious man is changing the weather ......... measurements. Weather stations located at what was a cow pasture now a concrete jungle is of course going to change weather readings to a higher value.Tell me to what degree there is manmade global warming. Give us the data, the science is settled according to you moonbats. Tell us why the Glacier Bay glacier receded 60 miles in the 1800's before the industrial revolution and why Mars polar caps are melting since the science is settled.
We are talking about the Earth...the whole Earth
What happened at one glacier 200 years ago does not represent a trend. Neither does the Mars climate
and you members of the AGW religion are telling us that you can measure the temperature of the "whole earth" to .2 of a degree?
come on RW, even you aren't that dumb.
Why not?
Scientific measurements can be taken much closer than .2 degrees. You can sample locations around the world to make determinations on global climate
New study of NOAA's U.S. Climate Network shows a lower 30-year temperature trend when high quality temperature stations unperturbed by urbanization are considered - 2015 AGU Fall Meeting
View attachment 103286
View attachment 103287
View attachment 103288
View attachment 103289
View attachment 103290
View attachment 103291
Whoop de fucking do.......
So cherry picking a few sites that you think may be compromised somehow invalidates Global Warming?
Most everybody is for all of the above, but don't expect people that don't believe in your hocus-pocus then pay for your trial and error for your mythical green energy. Reliable consistent "green energy" is decades away...Why do you guys always go all batshit crazy?you know if you read more or went out to a progressive state or used something called google, you'd see that there has been new technology that looks like giant fans, and window panes that point out to the sun, and huge machines with water rushing through them, and technology harvesting energy from the heat of the earth. really, you're bringing down the curve for the whole country.
What are petroleum products, and what is petroleum used for? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
"Petroleum products include transportation fuels, fuel oils for heating and electricity generation, asphalt and road oil, and feedstocks for making the chemicals, plastics, and synthetic materials that are in nearly everything we use today. Of the 7.13 billion barrels of total U.S. petroleum product consumption in 2015, 47% was motor gasoline (includes ethanol), 20% was distillate fuel (heating oil and diesel fuel), and 8% was jet fuel."
75% used for fuel and heating.
The other 25% are used to make chemicals, plastics, and synthetic materials.
how do we make those items without petroleum?
They have absolutely no idea. Maybe one day technology will be better but we still need oil for the next couple hundred years at least. They just want to shut it all down in the mean time or cripple the economy because they think that will speed up the transformation to alternative energy.
They want to shut down all oil production and leave us with nothing
Environmentalists are looking at a reduction in our dependence on oil and the development of alternative energy sources
Why does that scare the shit out of you?
The manmade global warming myth requires secrecy and threats to survive because there is no science supporting it.Your comrade Crick says the science behind manmade global warming must be kept secret from the public.WRONG !. What it concludes is that there is man made pollution. The link between pollution and warming has never been proven.
But, once again, why do you need that link? Why not just campaign to reduce pollution? That's your real issue isn't it? or is the real issue finding ways to control behavior that YOU don't like? Think, before answering, and try to be truthful.
"As is the case with other ‘surveys’ alleging an overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, the question surveyed had absolutely nothing to do with the issues of contention between global warming alarmists and global warming skeptics. The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming. The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action".
the link between man made pollution and global warming is based on a THEORY. It is based on computer models that were created using that same THEORY. Nothing in the AGW religion is based on proven climate history, atmospheric history, ice core history, carbon dating, or any other proven method. it is all theory.
But please tell me why you need the link between pollution and climate in order to tackle the real problem of manmade pollution. Not one of you flaming warmers has even attempted to answer that.
That is not how theories are validated. It is an extensive process using various scientific models and calculations
The way a scientific theory is NOT validated is by some rightwing radio host screaming that it snows in the winter so there cannot be any global warming
Obama Attacked His Own Scientists to Push Manmade Gorebal Warming Myth
Why is it that manmade global warming "science" works like that?
Holy Shit!
You mean there is a politics associated with Global Warming? That combatting the rightwing propaganda attack on Global Warming is not "real science"?
Oh yes......the oldAgain with the strawmman arguement. No one has ever claimed the climate has never changed. And your 93% arguement is proven bullshit. And then the hilarious BIG OIL! hysterical rant.A nationwide policy built upon lies.
If Obama wants to aircondition his 11,050 sq ft mansion he has zero right to tell me I need to reduce my carbon footprint.
Stop with your propaganda
Global warming is a reality. It is recognized as legitimate science by 93% of scientists around the world. The only place it is denied is among republicans who are in the pocket of big oil
So why does your agenda always require you to lie so often?
We need to wait ten thousand years before we can decide we need to do something
Scientists have linked specific man made activities that have accelerated climate change in the last 100 years
93% of scientists concur in manmade global warming.
Only those protecting the profits of the oil companies disagree
Has nothing to do with man. The climate has been changing for millions of years. We arent the cause. To suggest that we are is pure arrogance. You may want to direct your attention to the science that is showing gravitational effects on the planets in our solar system. There are extreme changes that are occuring on all of the planets in our solar system.
It has been accelerating in the last 100 years corresponding with our industrial expansion
