Nearly All the sciencist and the president both are taking global warming serious

[daveman]

If they didn't believe it why do they have it on their website?

Maybe because BP oil was once the leading system installer for large scale solar? Because Shell oil gets TONS of research money to look into biofuels? Because GE pretends to be green as a tree frog in order to collect green tax credits LARGER than their tax bill ??*

Lots of good reasons.. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

So they lie about believing in green technology, so they can defraud the government and taxpayer?

And you are okay with that, lying and fraud?

Kinda says more about you than BP

Where did he say he was okay with that?

 

[itfitzme]

Maybe because BP oil was once the leading system installer for large scale solar? Because Shell oil gets TONS of research money to look into biofuels? Because GE pretends to be green as a tree frog in order to collect green tax credits LARGER than their tax bill ??*

Lots of good reasons.. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

So they lie about believing in green technology, so they can defraud the government and taxpayer?

And you are okay with that, lying and fraud?

Kinda says more about you than BP

Where did he say he was okay with that?

You're okay with it too?

(If you don't get it, I'm not telling. It's a secret between grownups, like when mom can tell that her kids are lying. They think she can read their mind. Spooky. Do you think that mom is going to tell them how she knows? Really Dave?)

 

[Stephanie]

Republicans don't believe in science. They think science is a faith, evolution a lie and climate change a conspiracy.

ah wrong, it is you on the left who think science is a faith and we should put all scientist on some pedestal..

you really don't care you lie all the time about republicans..?

who the fuck ever said they didn't believe in any science? they have been wrong before...a lot of people just don't agree with this climate change hysteria but you sheep follow along after Obama while he leads you off the cliff

Because scientists are kinda stupid and Republicans know more science than those stupid and lazy scientists, right? Besides, that pedestal that Republicans have is already crowded with stupid. There is no room for scientists.

good grief...what the hell are you babbling about now?
better to stay quiet than make a damn fool of yourself, eh

 

[daveman]

So they lie about believing in green technology, so they can defraud the government and taxpayer?

And you are okay with that, lying and fraud?

Kinda says more about you than BP

Where did he say he was okay with that?

You're okay with it too?

(If you don't get it, I'm not telling. It's a secret between grownups, like when mom can tell that her kids are lying. They think she can read their mind. Spooky. Do you think that mom is going to tell them how she knows? Really Dave?)

Oh, so you're just making up shit and pretending to be superior.

How's that working out for you?

 

[itfitzme]

Where did he say he was okay with that?

You're okay with it too?

(If you don't get it, I'm not telling. It's a secret between grownups, like when mom can tell that her kids are lying. They think she can read their mind. Spooky. Do you think that mom is going to tell them how she knows? Really Dave?)

Oh, so you're just making up shit and pretending to be superior.

How's that working out for you?

So, no answer to the question? Is it okay if, as he suggests, that BP, Shell, and whichever, should take taxpayer money for clean energy reasearch if, in fact, they have no expectation of producing anything?

So far, I've counted three people who seem to take no issue with the idea of an oil company lying and committing fraud. And oddly, they all seem to have the same political lean. Three isn't a statistically significant sample to draw general conclusions, but it's the same rational. Oil companies don't believe in AWG, they are just BSing on their website.

Do you think a superior pocker player is going to be letting everyone know how he can spot other players tells? Really Dave? And yes, Dave, there are people that are "superior". I know there are people far superior than I. There are experts in all manner of areas. I don't play pocker with a professional pocker player, because I'd lose my shirt. It doesn't bother me that there are people who are superior. It's just a fact of life.

 

[daveman]

You're okay with it too?

(If you don't get it, I'm not telling. It's a secret between grownups, like when mom can tell that her kids are lying. They think she can read their mind. Spooky. Do you think that mom is going to tell them how she knows? Really Dave?)

Oh, so you're just making up shit and pretending to be superior.

How's that working out for you?

Do you think a superior pocker player is going to be letting everyone know how he can spot other players tells? Really Dave?

Superior pocker players don't misspell "poker".

So, yes, you're just pretending.

So, no answer to the question? Is it okay if, as he suggests, that BP, Shell, and whichever, should take taxpayer money for clean energy reasearch if, in fact, they have no expectation of producing anything?

Who says they have no expectation?

Companies embrace new technologies or they wither. It only makes sense that energy companies look for new forms of energy that they can profit from.

Can you understand that?

 

[itfitzme]

Oh, so you're just making up shit and pretending to be superior.

How's that working out for you?

Do you think a superior pocker player is going to be letting everyone know how he can spot other players tells? Really Dave?

Superior pocker players don't misspell "poker".

So, yes, you're just pretending.

So, no answer to the question? Is it okay if, as he suggests, that BP, Shell, and whichever, should take taxpayer money for clean energy reasearch if, in fact, they have no expectation of producing anything?

Who says they have no expectation?

Companies embrace new technologies or they wither. It only makes sense that energy companies look for new forms of energy that they can profit from.

Can you understand that?

So, in your opinion, the oil companies do think green tech is a viable option to mitigating climate change?

Like I said, I'm not a superior pocker player. Nor do I claim to be a superior speller. Are you doing the old, "you misspelled..." thing?

 

[itfitzme]

Superior pocker players don't misspell "poker".

So, yes, you're just pretending.

So, no answer to the question? *Is it okay if, as he suggests, that BP, Shell, and whichever, should take taxpayer money for clean energy reasearch if, in fact, they have no expectation of producing anything?

Who says they have no expectation?

Companies embrace new technologies or they wither. *It only makes sense that energy companies look for new forms of energy that they can profit from.

Can you understand that?

Maybe because BP oil was once the leading system installer for large scale solar? Because Shell oil gets TONS of research money to look into biofuels? Because GE pretends to be green as a tree frog in order to collect green tax credits LARGER than their tax bill ??*

Lots of good reasons.. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Gee, I don't know, someone said that GE pretends.

Apparently, all these companies are just pretending

Climate Change | Global Issues | Chevron

EXXON
Managing climate change risks | ExxonMobil

BP
Climate change

SHELL
Climate change - Shell Global

I'm looking for a GE site but I'll take flatulance's word for it.

And, if all those companies are just pretending, it only stands to reason that these are too.

GLOBAL

UN
Gateway to the UN System's Work on Climate Change - Home (CC Gateway)

WMO
Climate | WMO

IPCC
IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

World Bank
Climate Change Home

Europe
Climate change


World Health Organiztion
WHO | Climate change

OECD
Climate change - Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

NATIONS

Britian/United Kingdom
Climate - Met Office

Australia
Tackling the challenge of Climate Change | climatechange.gov.au
Climate Change in Australia - Temperature, Rainfall, Humidity, Sea surface Temperature, Wind speed, Potential evapotranspiration, Downward solar radiation

Canada
Canada's Action on Climate Change - Climate Change

Iran
Iran's Climate Change Office

New Zealand
New Zealand climate change information

US-FEDERAL

National Institute Of Health
Climate Change: MedlinePlus

NOAA
Science & Services for Society | NOAA Climate.gov
NOAA Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management : Climate Change

EPA
Home | Climate Change | US EPA

NASA
Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

USDA
USDA | Office of the Chief Economist | Climate Change Program Office

National Science Foundation
NSF Climate Change Special Report

CDC
CDC - Climate Change and Public Health - Health Effects

USGS
USGS: Science Topics: climate change

GAO
U.S. GAO - Climate Change Adaptation: Strategic Federal Planning Could Help Government Officials Make More Informed Decisions

Forest Service
U.S. Forest Service - Climate Change Emphasis Area

US-STATES

Alaska
State of Alaska - Climate Change in Alaska

Calif
Office of Planning and Research - Climate Change: Just the Facts

NY
Climate Change Information Resources - NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation

Vermont
Vermont Climate Change Initiative

Washington States
Clearinghouse: Federal Resources for Impacts, Preparation, Adaptation | Climate Change | Washington State Department of Ecology

SCIENCE

API
Climate Change

It only stands to reason. Social psychology has demonstrated that, paid a small amount, people will modify their beliefs to fit what they are paid to do. *Paid large sums, people happily take the money with no need to modify their beliefs.

So the oil companies take tax credits and pretend. *The other agencies believe it and get their salary.

And, as I've read things, there seems to be some discontent with the IPCC lying about climate change. *

So what's your thought about GE and the oil companies? *Is that okay too?

 

[daveman]

So, in your opinion, the oil companies do think green tech is a viable option to mitigating climate change?

No. Oil companies think green tech is a way to make money.

That's what companies do. Make money.

Like I said, I'm not a superior pocker player. Nor do I claim to be a superior speller. Are you doing the old, "you misspelled..." thing?

Depends. Are you doing the "I'm smarter than you because I say so!" thing?

 

[daveman]

Superior pocker players don't misspell "poker".

So, yes, you're just pretending.

So, no answer to the question? *Is it okay if, as he suggests, that BP, Shell, and whichever, should take taxpayer money for clean energy reasearch if, in fact, they have no expectation of producing anything?

Who says they have no expectation?

Companies embrace new technologies or they wither. *It only makes sense that energy companies look for new forms of energy that they can profit from.

Can you understand that?

Maybe because BP oil was once the leading system installer for large scale solar? Because Shell oil gets TONS of research money to look into biofuels? Because GE pretends to be green as a tree frog in order to collect green tax credits LARGER than their tax bill ??*

Lots of good reasons.. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Gee, I don't know, someone said that GE pretends.

Then take it up with him, and stop stamping your feet and pouting at me.

 

[Katzndogz]

I've heard of James Hansen.

He was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to concoct the global warming myth

James Hansen: Global Warming Scientist for Hire | The Right Counterpoints

James Hansen has become the poster boy for Global Warming alarmism over the past few years because of his work at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) which is part of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). For years we have heard just how pure his research in the area of Global Warming is because he is funded by the government and not by energy industry companies.

Well it has recently come to light via Investor’s Business Daily that James Hansen was not only funded by NASA, but that he had received up to $720,000 from George Soros’ Open Society Institute most likely under their “politicization of science” program. An irony under the circumstances to say the least. So here we find out that George Soros paid up to $720,000 to have James Hansen go out and publicly evangelize about Global Warming.


He is also a liar.

Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist, Dr. John S. Theon, the former supervisor of James Hansen, NASA’s vocal man-made global warming fear soothsayer, has now publicly declared himself a skeptic and declared that Hansen “embarrassed NASA” with his alarming climate claims and said Hansen was “was never muzzled.” Theon joins the rapidly growing ranks of international scientists abandoning the promotion of man-made global warming fears.

“I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man made,” Theon wrote to the Minority Office at the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 15, 2009. “I was, in effect, Hansen’s supervisor because I had to justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate his results.

“Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA’s official agency position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast climate change or mankind’s effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before Congress,

James Hansen?s Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic ? Says Hansen ?Embarrassed NASA?, ?Was Never Muzzled?, & Models ?Useless? | Watts Up With That?

 

[itfitzme]

Superior pocker players don't misspell "poker".

So, yes, you're just pretending.



Who says they have no expectation?

Companies embrace new technologies or they wither. *It only makes sense that energy companies look for new forms of energy that they can profit from.

Can you understand that?

Maybe because BP oil was once the leading system installer for large scale solar? Because Shell oil gets TONS of research money to look into biofuels? Because GE pretends to be green as a tree frog in order to collect green tax credits LARGER than their tax bill ??*

Lots of good reasons.. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Gee, I don't know, someone said that GE pretends.

Then take it up with him, and stop stamping your feet and pouting at me.

You brought it up. *You asked me, remember? *Or do you have difficulties remembering things?

Here, I'll help you.

Maybe because BP oil was once the leading system installer for large scale solar? Because Shell oil gets TONS of research money to look into biofuels? Because GE pretends to be green as a tree frog in order to collect green tax credits LARGER than their tax bill ??*

Lots of good reasons.. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

So they lie about believing in green technology, so they can defraud the government and taxpayer?

And you are okay with that, lying and fraud?

Kinda says more about you than BP

Where did he say he was okay with that?

Nice try with the emotional bs, though.

And you evade the question. *Do I need to repeat it, or do you think you can remember?

That's one technique for avoidance, conveniently forgetting.

 

[flacaltenn]

Gee, I don't know, someone said that GE pretends.

Then take it up with him, and stop stamping your feet and pouting at me.

You brought it up. *You asked me, remember? *Or do you have difficulties remembering things?

Here, I'll help you.

So they lie about believing in green technology, so they can defraud the government and taxpayer?

And you are okay with that, lying and fraud?

Kinda says more about you than BP

Where did he say he was okay with that?

Nice try with the emotional bs, though.

And you evade the question. *Do I need to repeat it, or do you think you can remember?

That's one technique for avoidance, conveniently forgetting.

Hey jerkoff... I'm not even OK with GE getting $75 in tax breaks for every green dishwasher they make. NO ONE should get a taxpayer DIME for anything that already exists in the open market.

But you never responded when I answered your question of why "pretending to be green" isn't the same thing as a stated will to save the planet from a fatal fever.. Guess you're happy with the answer overall then.. Or do you need to see the $BILLS we're crapping into the corporate and academic coffers on this?

 

[Wyld Kard]

The global warming theory, to put it in a nutshell, was that the planet was warming up and the polar ice caps were melting, and the reason for this phenomenon was humans. We have abused our environment and have caused a revolt by Mother Nature that could render us extinct. THIS IS THE CRAP GLOBAL WARMING BELIEVERS ACCEPT AS TRUTH.

The human race can be so conceited. IF global destruction is on its way, do WE really believe we can stop it by walking that three blocks to the store or using roll-on instead of aerosol deodorant?

 

[Friends]

Republicans don't believe in science. They think science is a faith, evolution a lie and climate change a conspiracy.

They also think tax cuts generate more tax revenue than tax increases. No amount of contrary evidence since 1980 can convince them that that is a delusion.

 

[flacaltenn]

The global warming theory, to put it in a nutshell, was that the planet was warming up and the polar ice caps were melting, and the reason for this phenomenon was humans. We have abused our environment and have caused a revolt by Mother Nature that could render us extinct. THIS IS THE CRAP GLOBAL WARMING BELIEVERS ACCEPT AS TRUTH.

The human race can be so conceited. IF global destruction is on its way, do WE really believe we can stop it by walking that three blocks to the store or using roll-on instead of aerosol deodorant?

The whole AGW theory is based on the concept of a climate system so fragile that ANY 2 degF change will set off the doomsday bomb. The amplification of that 2degF change caused by CO2 is just the trigger in their theory. They believe that positive feedbacks will multiply that 2 degF into 12degF by the end of the century..

It's NOT just that man tossed some excess CO2 into the atmosphere. They believe the planet we live on is a lemon with a death wish... And we're abusing the poor wittle thing with our Earth raping and Earth pillaging.

That's why the Discovery Network is so fascinated with REMOVING man from the planet. Did you ever see one of their many episodes in "After Man".. Where they blissfully show all of man's creations rotting back down into the pure unadulterated Earth?

You can almost here the eco-whacks CHEERING........

 

[Friends]

LOL

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal.pdf

Summary. The global temperature rose by 0.20C between the middle 1960's and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming
should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980's. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

Like I said: Fear-mongering.

Meanwhile, the climate is refusing to cooperate with your emotionalism:

Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it | Mail Online

Bad cultist. No world socialism for you!

That article did not credit this assertion, "The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week." to any credible source.

 

[Wyld Kard]

The global warming theory, to put it in a nutshell, was that the planet was warming up and the polar ice caps were melting, and the reason for this phenomenon was humans. We have abused our environment and have caused a revolt by Mother Nature that could render us extinct. THIS IS THE CRAP GLOBAL WARMING BELIEVERS ACCEPT AS TRUTH.

The human race can be so conceited. IF global destruction is on its way, do WE really believe we can stop it by walking that three blocks to the store or using roll-on instead of aerosol deodorant?

The whole AGW theory is based on the concept of a climate system so fragile that ANY 2 degF change will set off the doomsday bomb. The amplification of that 2degF change caused by CO2 is just the trigger in their theory. They believe that positive feedbacks will multiply that 2 degF into 12degF by the end of the century..

It's NOT just that man tossed some excess CO2 into the atmosphere. They believe the planet we live on is a lemon with a death wish... And we're abusing the poor wittle thing with our Earth raping and Earth pillaging.

That's why the Discovery Network is so fascinated with REMOVING man from the planet. Did you ever see one of their many episodes in "After Man".. Where they blissfully show all of man's creations rotting back down into the pure unadulterated Earth?

You can almost here the eco-whacks CHEERING........

Yeah I remember that show "After Man". It was global warming / climate change propaganda to scare people into joining their ranks of gullible sheep.

I had one those global warming nut jobs awhile back, trying over and over to make me feel guilty about what mankind is doing to poor old Earth. Trying to convince me something needs to be done now. So I asked that person for a Q-tip, they me what for. I told that I need to clean out my ears from all the bullshit you been spewing. That person just glared at me, called me an "Earth Hater" and left. Whatever, I'm not gullible like them and buy into lies and misinformation.

Global Warming / Climate Change has more to with making millions if not billions of dollars for the so-called global elite through their "going green" programs and less to do with the actual environment.

 

[daveman]

Gee, I don't know, someone said that GE pretends.

Then take it up with him, and stop stamping your feet and pouting at me.

You brought it up. *You asked me, remember? *Or do you have difficulties remembering things?

Here, I'll help you.

So they lie about believing in green technology, so they can defraud the government and taxpayer?

And you are okay with that, lying and fraud?

Kinda says more about you than BP

Where did he say he was okay with that?

Nice try with the emotional bs, though.

And you evade the question. *Do I need to repeat it, or do you think you can remember?

That's one technique for avoidance, conveniently forgetting.

Oh, you mean like you evading the question that got your frilly panties in a bunch:

"Where did he say he was okay with that?"

You never got around to answering that, for some reason. You went off on some irrational tangent about pocker players with an unmerited arrogance.

I repeat: Take it up with the guy you're making shit up about. I ain't interested.

 

[daveman]

LOL

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal.pdf

Summary. The global temperature rose by 0.20C between the middle 1960's and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming
should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980's. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

Like I said: Fear-mongering.

Meanwhile, the climate is refusing to cooperate with your emotionalism:

Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it | Mail Online

Bad cultist. No world socialism for you!

That article did not credit this assertion, "The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week." to any credible source.

You're right. The source is the Met Office. They don't have much credibility left.

Nevertheless, if you'd actually read the article, you'd have seen one of the High Priests of the Church of the Warming Globe actually confirm:

Some climate scientists, such as Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, last week dismissed the significance of the plateau, saying that 15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions.

--

Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, who found himself at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ scandal over leaked emails three years ago, would not normally be expected to agree with her. Yet on two important points, he did.

The data does suggest a plateau, he admitted, and without a major El Nino event – the sudden, dramatic warming of the southern Pacific which takes place unpredictably and always has a huge effect on global weather – ‘it could go on for a while’.​

The models the AGW cults uses are seriously flawed.