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.
Denialists have their backs to the wall. They have been fully exposed and their cult inflicted lies just don't fly in public any more.
They're sort of like flat earther's. They're laughing stock. They're the only ones left falling for the cult 's propaganda.
Ran out of arguments, did you?
Not at all. Science won. Politics lost. Next time bet on a fleeter horse. Or a horse rather than a jackass.
Ran out of arguments, did you?
Not at all. Science won. Politics lost. Next time bet on a fleeter horse. Or a horse rather than a jackass.
You have proven time after time that you don't know what science is.
The AGW cult has been exposed. That's why public support for things like the carbon tax is dropping like a stone. Australia just got done kicking all the warmists out of the government. The USA is next to get on that boat.
We're talking pretty short term, not the wide variations seen throughout history. If the earth warms 2 or 3 degrees from what it was in the pre-industrial era, shit is gonna melt and seas are gonna rise. It's elementary.
Well, I don't generally watch video. I am a reader. So I have no idea what the video says.
You shouldn't worry your pretty head about it though. AWG will be a disaster well before that occurs, if at all.
The realist issues are species habitat changes, drougth, and excessive precipitation. Maybe coastline erosion.
Hopefully the permafrost melt won't release too much methane.
If you are looking for definitive amswers, you migh want to stick to accounting.
In his book Storms of my Grandchildren, noted climate scientist James Hansen issued the following warning: "f we burn all reserves of oil, gas, and coal, there is a substantial chance we will initiate the runaway greenhouse. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale, I believe the Venus syndrome is a dead certainty."
Ohhh, the Venus syndrome. Sounds scary, quick, let's spend trillions on inefficient energy.
How can fuel-less, waste-less energy be inefficient?
"He Defrauded Me With Science"
What's all the the big commotion
It snowed just yesterday
And the rising of the ocean
Is only dramatic overplay
They're defrauding me with science
Defrauding me with science!
And ignoring simple history
When he's flying his Learjet
Defrauding me with science - Science
They say he's leaving a footprint
Science
Science
But it's all a big promotion
When it snowed just yesterday
And I can see no rising of the ocean
On the weak and old they prey
But he defrauded me with science
He defrauded me with science!
And disregarded simple meteorology
When Gore is flying ever nearer
Defrauding me with science-science
Science
I can see Al Jazeera
Defrauding me with science-science
Science
I thought he had such devotion
But now it seems he's mocking me
He sold out the Arctic Ocean
To pump and dump Current Tv
He defrauded me with science
He defrauded me with science!
And got off on a technicality
Good God Al Gore-
You're pitiful
I don't believe it
There he goes again
He's hidden his dossier
And I must get a FOIA
To see his inner secrets
And his little pet tricks
It's simple harmonic motion
So when it snowed just yesterday
And the rising of the ocean
A cycle repeated every day
Mmm but he defrauded me with science
He defrauded me with science!
And failed in philanthropy
He defrauded me - with science
He defrauded me with
Science discovers truth. Politics defrauds by imposing what's good for some on everyone.
As it has turned out, Gore has science on his side and Rush, nothing but bullshit.
Of course not everyone is capable of figuring that out.
Denialists have their backs to the wall. They have been fully exposed and their cult inflicted lies just don't fly in public any more.
They're sort of like flat earther's. They're laughing stock. They're the only ones left falling for the cult 's propaganda.
We're talking pretty short term, not the wide variations seen throughout history. If the earth warms 2 or 3 degrees from what it was in the pre-industrial era, shit is gonna melt and seas are gonna rise. It's elementary.
There might be more to climate change than the IPCC would have us believe.
For me it has to do with understanding the complexity of nature, and having studied anthropology. Quite frankly, I know history. I know that climate, throughout history, has had an effect on the rise and fall of civilizations.
In the past, humankind had nothing to do with the long term fluctuations of the general mean temperature. It has been much warmer than it is today, and much cooler.
For the government, corporate and cultural elites to use global climate change as an excuse to impose global government, they will need to have much more convincing proof that we are changing the weather in a radical way, more than it has changed naturally. Frankly, I haven't seen it. Our global weather system is a far more complex and dynamic system than to be controlled by just one input. Those beating their chests saying they "understand" the science are, in fact, deluding themselves.
We're talking pretty short term, not the wide variations seen throughout history. If the earth warms 2 or 3 degrees from what it was in the pre-industrial era, shit is gonna melt and seas are gonna rise. It's elementary.
And so? What does that have to do with us? What makes anyone think that our civilization can do anything about it any more than medieval European, ancient Chinese, or the Mayan civilization could do anything about long term global weather fluctuations. They couldn't. And neither can we. All we can do is mitigate our coping strategies and not let the global elites extract monetary gain from the lower classes based on a lie.
There might be more to climate change than the IPCC would have us believe.
For me it has to do with understanding the complexity of nature, and having studied anthropology. Quite frankly, I know history. I know that climate, throughout history, has had an effect on the rise and fall of civilizations.
In the past, humankind had nothing to do with the long term fluctuations of the general mean temperature. It has been much warmer than it is today, and much cooler.
For the government, corporate and cultural elites to use global climate change as an excuse to impose global government, they will need to have much more convincing proof that we are changing the weather in a radical way, more than it has changed naturally. Frankly, I haven't seen it. Our global weather system is a far more complex and dynamic system than to be controlled by just one input. Those beating their chests saying they "understand" the science are, in fact, deluding themselves.
So, the graphic above is brought to us by Cliff Harris and Randy Mann.
I believe this planet is a breathing entity, made by God, to clean itself, adjust itself. Harris said in the article by James Hagengruber. This would be The Rapture. The premise of this argument appears to be: human beings are not responsible for climate change because it is part of Gods greater Plan, therefore investing in costly forms of clean energy is not necessary or useful."
BigCityLib Strikes Back: What The Hell Is Long Range Weather?
This is the official temp record
We're talking pretty short term, not the wide variations seen throughout history. If the earth warms 2 or 3 degrees from what it was in the pre-industrial era, shit is gonna melt and seas are gonna rise. It's elementary.
And so? What does that have to do with us? What makes anyone think that our civilization can do anything about it any more than medieval European, ancient Chinese, or the Mayan civilization could do anything about long term global weather fluctuations. They couldn't. And neither can we. All we can do is mitigate our coping strategies and not let the global elites extract monetary gain from the lower classes based on a lie.
Well, now that just wouldn't be correct.
A common reason that people deny climate change appears to be mistaken understanding of how the economy functions which leads them to believe that any efforts to mitigate climate change will result in less money in their pockets.
A common reason that people deny climate change appears to be mistaken understanding of how the economy functions which leads them to believe that any efforts to mitigate climate change will result in less money in their pockets.
True. Obama's friends know that efforts to mitigate climate change will result in more money in their pockets.
Maybe you can explain how a carbon tax leaves my pockets unharmed?
A common reason that people deny climate change appears to be mistaken understanding of how the economy functions which leads them to believe that any efforts to mitigate climate change will result in less money in their pockets.
True. Obama's friends know that efforts to mitigate climate change will result in more money in their pockets.
Maybe you can explain how a carbon tax leaves my pockets unharmed?
Maybe you can explain how it has anything to do with your pocket?
And so? What does that have to do with us? What makes anyone think that our civilization can do anything about it any more than medieval European, ancient Chinese, or the Mayan civilization could do anything about long term global weather fluctuations. They couldn't. And neither can we. All we can do is mitigate our coping strategies and not let the global elites extract monetary gain from the lower classes based on a lie.
Well, now that just wouldn't be correct.
Sure it is. I don't debate or refute the projections of this chart that was posted at all. All I am saying is that the data and modeling used to make these projections are short sighted. These people need to take logic classes. Most people that debate AGW do not deny that warming is occurring, they just have issues as to how precisely we can determine the driving force.
Correlation DOES NOT prove Causation.
Did you look at the charts I posted?
What do you notice about them? That's right, they can both be correct, (the graphs I posted,) and in line with the chart that was just posted. They are congruent. Look at the date range. You will notice that dates for the temperature ranges I posted are much longer. Why do AGW theorists want to take such a short sighted view of the Earth's temperature fluctuations? One has to wonder if they have a hidden agenda, or if they are just ignorant.
So what does that tell us? It tells us that Anthropogenic Global Warming is not a good theory for explaining what we see occurring in nature. Why? Because long terms global temperature fluctuations have been occurring long before heavy industry, energy use, and mass transportation was engaged in by our species.
Why do AGW supporters refuse to see the obvious right in front of their faces, even when their own charts and models show what is essentially truth?
And so? What does that have to do with us? What makes anyone think that our civilization can do anything about it any more than medieval European, ancient Chinese, or the Mayan civilization could do anything about long term global weather fluctuations. They couldn't. And neither can we. All we can do is mitigate our coping strategies and not let the global elites extract monetary gain from the lower classes based on a lie.
Well, now that just wouldn't be correct.
Sure it is. I don't debate or refute the projections of this chart that was posted at all. All I am saying is that the data and modeling used to make these projections are short sighted. These people need to take logic classes. Most people that debate AGW do not deny that warming is occurring, they just have issues as to how precisely we can determine the driving force.
Correlation DOES NOT prove Causation.
Did you look at the charts I posted?
What do you notice about them? That's right, they can both be correct, (the graphs I posted,) and in line with the chart that was just posted. They are congruent. Look at the date range. You will notice that dates for the temperature ranges I posted are much longer. Why do AGW theorists want to take such a short sighted view of the Earth's temperature fluctuations? One has to wonder if they have a hidden agenda, or if they are just ignorant.
So what does that tell us? It tells us that Anthropogenic Global Warming is not a good theory for explaining what we see occurring in nature. Why? Because long terms global temperature fluctuations have been occurring long before heavy industry, energy use, and mass transportation was engaged in by our species.
Why do AGW supporters refuse to see the obvious right in front of their faces, even when their own charts and models show what is essentially truth?
