Pollution, climate change, or control?

[BlindBoo]

thousands of scientists have shown that increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere has been causing global warming.

They aren't scientists, they are fudgebaking liars, and this is just part of what they fudged...

We measure Earth's atmospheric temperature two ways - satellites and weather balloons. Both showed no warming in highly correlated fashion in 2005, which was a big problem for Algore's FRAUd....


Key Argument for Global Warming Critics Evaporates


"satellite and weather balloon data have actually suggested the opposite, that the atmosphere was cooling.

Scientists were left with two choices: either the atmosphere wasn't warming up, or something was wrong with the data."


LOL!!!


With tens of billions of US taxdollars at stake, the "scientists" fudged BOTH series with UNCORRELATED "corrections."

The reasons?

LOL!!!

Satellites had rbit wobble" and the thermometers on the balloons were just "wrong."

LOL!!!


There is nothing scientific about fudging data. There is NO WARMING in the atmosphere according to THE TWO AND ONLY TWO MEASURES....

Sure, sure. It's a Chinese hoax.

Satellites and Global Warming: Dr. Christy Sets the Record Straight

 

[Richard-H]

thousands of scientists have shown that increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere has been causing global warming.

They aren't scientists, they are fudgebaking liars, and this is just part of what they fudged...

We measure Earth's atmospheric temperature two ways - satellites and weather balloons. Both showed no warming in highly correlated fashion in 2005, which was a big problem for Algore's FRAUd....


Key Argument for Global Warming Critics Evaporates


"satellite and weather balloon data have actually suggested the opposite, that the atmosphere was cooling.

Scientists were left with two choices: either the atmosphere wasn't warming up, or something was wrong with the data."


LOL!!!


With tens of billions of US taxdollars at stake, the "scientists" fudged BOTH series with UNCORRELATED "corrections."

The reasons?

LOL!!!

Satellites had rbit wobble" and the thermometers on the balloons were just "wrong."

LOL!!!


There is nothing scientific about fudging data. There is NO WARMING in the atmosphere according to THE TWO AND ONLY TWO MEASURES....

You're obviously a partisan troll, so there's no point in debating you - you'll believe whatever your master's tell you. Logic and reason are lost on you.

Just the fact that you refer to Global Warming as 'Al Gore's fraud' is proof of what a mindless parrot you are.

 

[LaDexter]

so there's no point in debating you

Translation - given sub human science invalid left wing parrot cannot answer any of my questions, since such questions do not have answers to be PARROTED on the web.

 

[LaDexter]

Sure, sure. It's a Chinese hoax.

No, but it is a LEFTIST FRAUD....

and PARROTING another FUDGEBAKER who FUDGED the atmospheric data is what you do, birdbrain...






The raw data was highly correlated. IF a decent scientist has two and only two measures of the same thing, and the two return highly correlated data, there is no reason to question that data, unless that data tells the truth that your taxpayer funded "job" is not needed because the theory behind it is complete and total BULLSHIT.

 

[BlindBoo]

Sure, sure. It's a Chinese hoax.

No, but it is a LEFTIST FRAUD....

and PARROTING another FUDGEBAKER who FUDGED the atmospheric data is what you do, birdbrain...






The raw data was highly correlated. IF a decent scientist has two and only two measures of the same thing, and the two return highly correlated data, there is no reason to question that data, unless that data tells the truth that your taxpayer funded "job" is not needed because the theory behind it is complete and total BULLSHIT.

A world wide leftist fraud.

Muh-haha. (evil laughter)......

 

[LaDexter]

The only raw data that shows warming is the Surface Ground, which is influenced by this...

Beating the Heat in the World's Big Cities : Feature Articles


"an urban area can see air temperatures up to 6 degrees Celsius (10 degrees Fahrenheit) hotter than the nearby suburban and rural areas."


and hence, the FRAUD of Global "warming" is the deliberate misinterpretation of the URBAN HEAT SINK EFFECT on the SURFACE GROUND TEMP series, the only series showing any warming in the RAW DATA, as the rest shows precisely

1. NO WARMING in the atmosphere
2. NO WARMING in the oceans
3. NO NET ICE MELT
4. NO BREAKOUT in cane activity (in fact, a record long drought of canes hitting the US ongoing now)
5. NO WARMING on the surface of Antarctica and Siberia - no cities there


Laugh all you want, PARROT, you can't think, you can't answer questions, and all you do is parrot :LEFT WING LIES.

 

[Richard-H]

The only raw data that shows warming is the Surface Ground, which is influenced by this...

Beating the Heat in the World's Big Cities : Feature Articles


"an urban area can see air temperatures up to 6 degrees Celsius (10 degrees Fahrenheit) hotter than the nearby suburban and rural areas."


and hence, the FRAUD of Global "warming" is the deliberate misinterpretation of the URBAN HEAT SINK EFFECT on the SURFACE GROUND TEMP series, the only series showing any warming in the RAW DATA, as the rest shows precisely

1. NO WARMING in the atmosphere
2. NO WARMING in the oceans
3. NO NET ICE MELT
4. NO BREAKOUT in cane activity (in fact, a record long drought of canes hitting the US ongoing now)
5. NO WARMING on the surface of Antarctica and Siberia - no cities there


Laugh all you want, PARROT, you can't think, you can't answer questions, and all you do is parrot :LEFT WING LIES.

Let's see, should we believe some mindless partisan internet twit called LaDexter or should we believe NASA?

NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming

Not a hard one to figure out...

 

[CowboyTed]

trying to understand what is really behind the left's obsession with "man made climate change".

If its reducing man made pollution, I am all in with them. So are 99% of the people of planet earth.

If its an unproven link between pollution and climate, its bunk and not necessary----- if the goal is reducing pollution

If its controlling human activity, which I believe it is, then they can stick it where the sun never shines.
Liberals seem to think that they know how the rest of us should live and want to force us to live as they dictate, where to set our thermostats, what kind of light bulbs, what kind of cars, what kind of food, how our power is generated, where we can travel, and what we must believe---------------because they have all the answers and they are always right.

Listen libs, pollution is bad, everyone wants to stop pollution. You don't need a fake link between pollution and climate to make the case for stopping pollution. Soooooooooo, your real issue has to be control of the actions of others.

Comments?

When it comes down to it reduction of pollution and respect for our environment is all we can really do. It doesn't matter if there is a link between mans actions and climate change. We should all be able to agree that the cleaner we live the better for all.

Now yes, there are wingnuts on the left that point to doomsday and want too much government control/regulations over our daily lives... and there are rightwing nuts that focus on discrediting all environmental discussion because they don't really give a shit what they do as long as they can make a buck. I believe the majority of people fall in the middle. They don't want big business and our government destroying our habitat, they support development of clean energy methods, they support infrastructure that keeps our water and air clean, and they support better education about environmental issues.

It would be great to have a constructive discussion about the best ways to move forward without the voices of the wingnuts taking over.

I am sorry it is not wing nuts as you describe it...

Every major Scientific Organisation and even the major global Oil Companies(Exxon, Shell,...) now admit that man made climate change is real. There is only a handful of scientists who are paid off or relying on unverified or false data... Some of the people who have tried and defend to sceptic view don't even know the difference between Climate and Weather...

 

[Wyatt earp]

The only raw data that shows warming is the Surface Ground, which is influenced by this...

Beating the Heat in the World's Big Cities : Feature Articles


"an urban area can see air temperatures up to 6 degrees Celsius (10 degrees Fahrenheit) hotter than the nearby suburban and rural areas."


and hence, the FRAUD of Global "warming" is the deliberate misinterpretation of the URBAN HEAT SINK EFFECT on the SURFACE GROUND TEMP series, the only series showing any warming in the RAW DATA, as the rest shows precisely

1. NO WARMING in the atmosphere
2. NO WARMING in the oceans
3. NO NET ICE MELT
4. NO BREAKOUT in cane activity (in fact, a record long drought of canes hitting the US ongoing now)
5. NO WARMING on the surface of Antarctica and Siberia - no cities there


Laugh all you want, PARROT, you can't think, you can't answer questions, and all you do is parrot :LEFT WING LIES.

Let's see, should we believe some mindless partisan internet twit called LaDexter or should we believe NASA?

NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming

Not a hard one to figure out...

 

[LaDexter]

Let's see, should we believe some mindless partisan internet twit called LaDexter or should we believe NASA?

Like the birdbrain you are, you refuse to think. All you do is PARROT, and decide WHO to PARROT....






90% of Earth ice is on land mass Antarctica. What does NASA's DATA say about that ice???

NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses


"According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008."


NASA's DATA says Antarctica has added at least 80 billion tons of ice EVERY YEAR since Algore started lying...

So PARROT THAT, birdbrain...

 

[LaDexter]

now admit

This is the man who had you figured out 100%













Joseph Goebbels

 

[Wyatt earp]

trying to understand what is really behind the left's obsession with "man made climate change".

If its reducing man made pollution, I am all in with them. So are 99% of the people of planet earth.

If its an unproven link between pollution and climate, its bunk and not necessary----- if the goal is reducing pollution

If its controlling human activity, which I believe it is, then they can stick it where the sun never shines.
Liberals seem to think that they know how the rest of us should live and want to force us to live as they dictate, where to set our thermostats, what kind of light bulbs, what kind of cars, what kind of food, how our power is generated, where we can travel, and what we must believe---------------because they have all the answers and they are always right.

Listen libs, pollution is bad, everyone wants to stop pollution. You don't need a fake link between pollution and climate to make the case for stopping pollution. Soooooooooo, your real issue has to be control of the actions of others.

Comments?

When it comes down to it reduction of pollution and respect for our environment is all we can really do. It doesn't matter if there is a link between mans actions and climate change. We should all be able to agree that the cleaner we live the better for all.

Now yes, there are wingnuts on the left that point to doomsday and want too much government control/regulations over our daily lives... and there are rightwing nuts that focus on discrediting all environmental discussion because they don't really give a shit what they do as long as they can make a buck. I believe the majority of people fall in the middle. They don't want big business and our government destroying our habitat, they support development of clean energy methods, they support infrastructure that keeps our water and air clean, and they support better education about environmental issues.

It would be great to have a constructive discussion about the best ways to move forward without the voices of the wingnuts taking over.

I am sorry it is not wing nuts as you describe it...

Every major Scientific Organisation and even the major global Oil Companies(Exxon, Shell,...) now admit that man made climate change is real. There is only a handful of scientists who are paid off or relying on unverified or false data... Some of the people who have tried and defend to sceptic view don't even know the difference between Climate and Weather...

You don't know their is a difference between pollution and climate...



I also love these scientist who study worms and carp are now qualified to be experts on climate change..

$$$$



.

 

[CowboyTed]

The only raw data that shows warming is the Surface Ground, which is influenced by this...

Beating the Heat in the World's Big Cities : Feature Articles


"an urban area can see air temperatures up to 6 degrees Celsius (10 degrees Fahrenheit) hotter than the nearby suburban and rural areas."


and hence, the FRAUD of Global "warming" is the deliberate misinterpretation of the URBAN HEAT SINK EFFECT on the SURFACE GROUND TEMP series, the only series showing any warming in the RAW DATA, as the rest shows precisely

1. NO WARMING in the atmosphere
2. NO WARMING in the oceans
3. NO NET ICE MELT
4. NO BREAKOUT in cane activity (in fact, a record long drought of canes hitting the US ongoing now)
5. NO WARMING on the surface of Antarctica and Siberia - no cities there


Laugh all you want, PARROT, you can't think, you can't answer questions, and all you do is parrot :LEFT WING LIES.

1. NO WARMING in the atmosphere
Satellite measurements of warming in the troposphere
2. NO WARMING in the oceans
Make No Mistake: Earth's Oceans Are Steadily Warming
3. NO NET ICE MELT
Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

I am stopping there because I have clearly shown you to be a bullshitter... Your credibility is gone...

 

[LaDexter]

It really doesn't take a genius to figure it out. Just someone who understands science and asks some questions like

1 WHY does one Earth polar circle have 9 times the ice of the other?
2. During the past million years, Greenland froze while NA thawed - what did CO2 have to do with either given it was constant for both?


But that requires a human brain, not a bird brain...

 

[Wyatt earp]

The only raw data that shows warming is the Surface Ground, which is influenced by this...

Beating the Heat in the World's Big Cities : Feature Articles


"an urban area can see air temperatures up to 6 degrees Celsius (10 degrees Fahrenheit) hotter than the nearby suburban and rural areas."


and hence, the FRAUD of Global "warming" is the deliberate misinterpretation of the URBAN HEAT SINK EFFECT on the SURFACE GROUND TEMP series, the only series showing any warming in the RAW DATA, as the rest shows precisely

1. NO WARMING in the atmosphere
2. NO WARMING in the oceans
3. NO NET ICE MELT
4. NO BREAKOUT in cane activity (in fact, a record long drought of canes hitting the US ongoing now)
5. NO WARMING on the surface of Antarctica and Siberia - no cities there


Laugh all you want, PARROT, you can't think, you can't answer questions, and all you do is parrot :LEFT WING LIES.

1. NO WARMING in the atmosphere
Satellite measurements of warming in the troposphere
2. NO WARMING in the oceans
Make No Mistake: Earth's Oceans Are Steadily Warming
3. NO NET ICE MELT
Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

I am stopping there because I have clearly shown you to be a bullshitter... Your credibility is gone...

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism/


At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.

 

[LaDexter]

I am stopping there because I have clearly shown you to be a bullshitter... Your credibility is gone...

No, you are sub human parrot who has ignored the documentation that the satellites and balloons both showed NO WARMING in the atmosphere until both series were FUDGED. Truth be told, you are too much of a science invalid to understand the difference between RAW DATA and FUDGE.

Let's try this one. 90% of Earth's ice is on Antarctica, and above I just documented the DATA, NASA's DATA, shows that ice adding at least 80 billion tons of ice every year. A "net ice melt" with 90% of the sample GROWING - NICE....

Ocean temps are fudged too...

Study Finds Earth’s Ocean Abyss Has Not Warmed | Science Mission Directorate

NASA: Earth's deep oceans are not getting warmer - Geek.com

 

[CowboyTed]

trying to understand what is really behind the left's obsession with "man made climate change".

If its reducing man made pollution, I am all in with them. So are 99% of the people of planet earth.

If its an unproven link between pollution and climate, its bunk and not necessary----- if the goal is reducing pollution

If its controlling human activity, which I believe it is, then they can stick it where the sun never shines.
Liberals seem to think that they know how the rest of us should live and want to force us to live as they dictate, where to set our thermostats, what kind of light bulbs, what kind of cars, what kind of food, how our power is generated, where we can travel, and what we must believe---------------because they have all the answers and they are always right.

Listen libs, pollution is bad, everyone wants to stop pollution. You don't need a fake link between pollution and climate to make the case for stopping pollution. Soooooooooo, your real issue has to be control of the actions of others.

Comments?

When it comes down to it reduction of pollution and respect for our environment is all we can really do. It doesn't matter if there is a link between mans actions and climate change. We should all be able to agree that the cleaner we live the better for all.

Now yes, there are wingnuts on the left that point to doomsday and want too much government control/regulations over our daily lives... and there are rightwing nuts that focus on discrediting all environmental discussion because they don't really give a shit what they do as long as they can make a buck. I believe the majority of people fall in the middle. They don't want big business and our government destroying our habitat, they support development of clean energy methods, they support infrastructure that keeps our water and air clean, and they support better education about environmental issues.

It would be great to have a constructive discussion about the best ways to move forward without the voices of the wingnuts taking over.

I am sorry it is not wing nuts as you describe it...

Every major Scientific Organisation and even the major global Oil Companies(Exxon, Shell,...) now admit that man made climate change is real. There is only a handful of scientists who are paid off or relying on unverified or false data... Some of the people who have tried and defend to sceptic view don't even know the difference between Climate and Weather...

You don't know their is a difference between pollution and climate...



I also love these scientist who study worms and carp are now qualified to be experts on climate change..

$$$$



.

This is just the start...

Scientific organizations endorsing the consensus
The following scientific organizations endorse the consensus position that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities":

• American Association for the Advancement of Science
• American Astronomical Society
• American Chemical Society
• American Geophysical Union
• American Institute of Physics
• American Meteorological Society
• American Physical Society
• Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
• Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO
• British Antarctic Survey
• Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
• Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
• Environmental Protection Agency
• European Geosciences Union
• European Physical Society
• Federation of American Scientists
• Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
• Geological Society of America
• Geological Society of London
• International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
• International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
• National Center for Atmospheric Research
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
• Royal Meteorological Society
• Royal Society of the UK
  
  

 

[LaDexter]

This is just the start...

A parrot never stops. It will parrot and parrot and parrot, and never care it cannot answer the basic questions, which require some intelligence and ability to think....

WHY does one Earth polar circle have 9 times the ice of the other?

What caused NA to thaw while Greenland froze over the past million years (hint - CO2 was constant for both)?


Asking a question to a parrot is guaranteed not to get an answer, but rather a load more BAWKING....

 

[Wyatt earp]

trying to understand what is really behind the left's obsession with "man made climate change".

If its reducing man made pollution, I am all in with them. So are 99% of the people of planet earth.

If its an unproven link between pollution and climate, its bunk and not necessary----- if the goal is reducing pollution

If its controlling human activity, which I believe it is, then they can stick it where the sun never shines.
Liberals seem to think that they know how the rest of us should live and want to force us to live as they dictate, where to set our thermostats, what kind of light bulbs, what kind of cars, what kind of food, how our power is generated, where we can travel, and what we must believe---------------because they have all the answers and they are always right.

Listen libs, pollution is bad, everyone wants to stop pollution. You don't need a fake link between pollution and climate to make the case for stopping pollution. Soooooooooo, your real issue has to be control of the actions of others.

Comments?

When it comes down to it reduction of pollution and respect for our environment is all we can really do. It doesn't matter if there is a link between mans actions and climate change. We should all be able to agree that the cleaner we live the better for all.

Now yes, there are wingnuts on the left that point to doomsday and want too much government control/regulations over our daily lives... and there are rightwing nuts that focus on discrediting all environmental discussion because they don't really give a shit what they do as long as they can make a buck. I believe the majority of people fall in the middle. They don't want big business and our government destroying our habitat, they support development of clean energy methods, they support infrastructure that keeps our water and air clean, and they support better education about environmental issues.

It would be great to have a constructive discussion about the best ways to move forward without the voices of the wingnuts taking over.

I am sorry it is not wing nuts as you describe it...

Every major Scientific Organisation and even the major global Oil Companies(Exxon, Shell,...) now admit that man made climate change is real. There is only a handful of scientists who are paid off or relying on unverified or false data... Some of the people who have tried and defend to sceptic view don't even know the difference between Climate and Weather...

What do they agree on?

Sanders claimed that “97 percent of the scientists who wrote articles in peer-reviewed journals believe that human activity is the fundamental reason we are seeing climate change.”


A survey-of-surveys published last year in Environmentalsearch Lettersreported that prior surveys had found 78 percent of scientists agreeing that “the cause of global warming over the past 150 years was mostly human,” 82 percent agreeing that “human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures,” and 85 percent agreeing that “anthropogenic greenhouse gases are the dominant driver of recent global warming.” Of course, even among those expressing agreement about the “significant” or “dominant” human role, debate would presumably have emerged about whether natural factors accounted for 0, 10, 25, or 50 percent.

 

[CowboyTed]

I am stopping there because I have clearly shown you to be a bullshitter... Your credibility is gone...

No, you are sub human parrot who has ignored the documentation that the satellites and balloons both showed NO WARMING in the atmosphere until both series were FUDGED. Truth be told, you are too much of a science invalid to understand the difference between RAW DATA and FUDGE.

Let's try this one. 90% of Earth's ice is on Antarctica, and above I just documented the DATA, NASA's DATA, shows that ice adding at least 80 billion tons of ice every year. A "net ice melt" with 90% of the sample GROWING - NICE....

Ocean temps are fudged too...

Study Finds Earth’s Ocean Abyss Has Not Warmed | Science Mission Directorate

NASA: Earth's deep oceans are not getting warmer - Geek.com

Please read your own articles before posting...

They do not say the Oceans are not getting warmer... Simply put it is saying the deep Oceans are not getting warmer at the rate first atticpated...