http://spectator.org/articles/55208/false-alert-global-warming
Climate change alarmists are tree hating, science deniers.
Climate change alarmists are tree hating, science deniers.
Does the snow storm disprove climate change?
- Thread starter ymmot31
- Start date
Alternative fuels arent the only thing that can reduce fossil fuel consumption (and thus reduce our need to pay people that supply energy).
Here's the thing, neanderthals, I do not have to waste my time trying to teach basic fundamental science to a group of creationist coal mining single celled planktonian idiots. The world doesn't want your misinformed uneducated opinions anyway. That's my point. Nobody cares to wallow in your ignorance. You are welcome to your ignorance. Continue, please.
Just do not mistake your own ignorance for that of the rest of the advanced civilized world as we have moved on. We have transcended you and left you to yourselves. For all intents and purposes you have been selected for extinction. No further resources, training, or education will be directed towards you. Nothing you say, scream, post, discuss, holler at, or cry about will have the slightest impact on the rest of the world. You are all ghosts. Dumb translucent blobs of human jellyfish bobbing about waiting to die while oblivious to the real world around you.
Just do not mistake your own ignorance for that of the rest of the advanced civilized world as we have moved on. We have transcended you and left you to yourselves. For all intents and purposes you have been selected for extinction. No further resources, training, or education will be directed towards you. Nothing you say, scream, post, discuss, holler at, or cry about will have the slightest impact on the rest of the world. You are all ghosts. Dumb translucent blobs of human jellyfish bobbing about waiting to die while oblivious to the real world around you.
Do you not understand the staggering expanse of advanced knowledge you are aligning against... while admitting you do not even understand how greenhouse gasses work? That's the thing. Because you are ignorant does not somehow lessen the actual scientific body of knowledge. You are not contributing to the discussion meaningfully because you do not have sufficient understanding with which to do so. There are many things you do not understand but your lack of understanding does not indicate a lack of credibility of the knowledge itself.
How do you perform a heart transplant? How does the Space Shuttle reenter earth's atmosphere without burning up? How does a record player work? How do I fly a jet airplane?
You cannot answer any of these things and yet you do not question them. So what on earth makes you idiots think that simply because it cannot be explained to you in simple enough terms that the entire body of the world's greatest scientific institutions all have it wrong and you fumbling morons somehow have it right?
How do you perform a heart transplant? How does the Space Shuttle reenter earth's atmosphere without burning up? How does a record player work? How do I fly a jet airplane?
You cannot answer any of these things and yet you do not question them. So what on earth makes you idiots think that simply because it cannot be explained to you in simple enough terms that the entire body of the world's greatest scientific institutions all have it wrong and you fumbling morons somehow have it right?
![[roll]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/roll.r191677.gif "roll [roll]")
Why didn't the climate models make accurate predictions of todays climate? Were they not scientific? I could make a climate model that shows tomatoes are the cause of global warming. A model doesn't know anything the programmer doesn't tell it to know.
All the climate "scientists" agree that there has been no appreciable warming for the last 18 years. This proves that CO2 could not be the primary driver since it has continued to rise unabated for that same period.
Using your same logic, calling someone stupid doesn't make them stupid. Answer some real questions and prove you have a clue what you're talking about.
All the climate "scientists" agree that there has been no appreciable warming for the last 18 years. This proves that CO2 could not be the primary driver since it has continued to rise unabated for that same period.
Using your same logic, calling someone stupid doesn't make them stupid. Answer some real questions and prove you have a clue what you're talking about.
So who is Ziusudra/global storm/etc for?
Because I'm lobbying hard for the opposite of that. Must be one lonely MFer to sit around making multiple user names for a message board which has banned him 25+ times because literally everyone hates him. Dude types all of this pseudo intelligent garbage and expects everyone to sit back and change their beliefs because of his ramblings. C'mon man...
Because I'm lobbying hard for the opposite of that. Must be one lonely MFer to sit around making multiple user names for a message board which has banned him 25+ times because literally everyone hates him. Dude types all of this pseudo intelligent garbage and expects everyone to sit back and change their beliefs because of his ramblings. C'mon man...
Says the 125 lb suburban white kid with a negro in a knit cap for his user pic. Keep living that thug life, Jaxson Carson McCandless III..
If climate change was real, wouldn't all of our anuses be toasted by now?
False, China and India make anything we do even more negligible.
Daboss follows him (and fuzz/rq) around like a puppy dog liking every wordy post
Antarctica had record ice last year. Remember the global warming tourist boat that got stuck in the ice that wasn't supposed to be there? The word "global" has a very distinct meaning. It is being misused in the discussion about the climate.
http://www.defense.gov/News-Article-View/Article/612710
WASHINGTON, July 29, 2015 — Global climate change will aggravate problems such as poverty, social tensions, environmental degradation, ineffectual leadership and weak political institutions that threaten stability in a number of countries, according to a report the Defense Department sent to Congress yesterday.
The Senate Appropriations Committee requested the report in conjunction with the Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2015, asking that the undersecretary of defense for policy provide a report that identifies the most serious and likely climate-related security risks for each combatant command and the ways those commands integrate risk mitigation into their planning processes.
Fragile States Vulnerable to Disruption
The report finds that climate change is a security risk, Pentagon officials said, because it degrades living conditions, human security and the ability of governments to meet the basic needs of their populations. Communities and states that already are fragile and have limited resources are significantly more vulnerable to disruption and far less likely to respond effectively and be resilient to new challenges, they added.
“The Department of Defense's primary responsibility is to protect national security interests around the world,” officials said in a news release announcing the report’s submission. “This involves considering all aspects of the global security environment and planning appropriately for potential contingencies and the possibility of unexpected developments both in the near and the longer terms.
“It is in this context,” they continued, “that the department must consider the effects of climate change -- such as sea level rise, shifting climate zones and more frequent and intense severe weather events -- and how these effects could impact national security.”
Integrating Climate-Related Impacts Into Planning
To reduce the national security implications of climate change, combatant commands are integrating climate-related impacts into their planning cycles, officials said. The ability of the United States and other countries to cope with the risks and implications of climate change requires monitoring, analysis and integration of those risks into existing overall risk management measures, as appropriate for each combatant command, they added.
The report concludes the Defense Department already is observing the impacts of climate change in shocks and stressors to vulnerable nations and communities, including in the United States, the Arctic, the Middle East, Africa, Asia and South America, officials said.
https://defensesystems.com/articles/2015/08/07/dod-climate-change-threat-report.aspx
Pentagon planners are "beginning to include the implications of a changing climate in [their] frameworks for managing operational and strategic risks prudently," the report noted. "Moreover, the department is working with other U.S. government departments and agencies, partner nations and many other entities on addressing climate security risks and implications."
http://mashable.com/2015/07/29/pentagon-global-warming-present-threat/#QvVaGahCAGqg
In a report to Congress, the Defense Department said that global warming poses a "present security threat, not strictly a long-term risk."
WASHINGTON, July 29, 2015 — Global climate change will aggravate problems such as poverty, social tensions, environmental degradation, ineffectual leadership and weak political institutions that threaten stability in a number of countries, according to a report the Defense Department sent to Congress yesterday.
The Senate Appropriations Committee requested the report in conjunction with the Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2015, asking that the undersecretary of defense for policy provide a report that identifies the most serious and likely climate-related security risks for each combatant command and the ways those commands integrate risk mitigation into their planning processes.
Fragile States Vulnerable to Disruption
The report finds that climate change is a security risk, Pentagon officials said, because it degrades living conditions, human security and the ability of governments to meet the basic needs of their populations. Communities and states that already are fragile and have limited resources are significantly more vulnerable to disruption and far less likely to respond effectively and be resilient to new challenges, they added.
“The Department of Defense's primary responsibility is to protect national security interests around the world,” officials said in a news release announcing the report’s submission. “This involves considering all aspects of the global security environment and planning appropriately for potential contingencies and the possibility of unexpected developments both in the near and the longer terms.
“It is in this context,” they continued, “that the department must consider the effects of climate change -- such as sea level rise, shifting climate zones and more frequent and intense severe weather events -- and how these effects could impact national security.”
Integrating Climate-Related Impacts Into Planning
To reduce the national security implications of climate change, combatant commands are integrating climate-related impacts into their planning cycles, officials said. The ability of the United States and other countries to cope with the risks and implications of climate change requires monitoring, analysis and integration of those risks into existing overall risk management measures, as appropriate for each combatant command, they added.
The report concludes the Defense Department already is observing the impacts of climate change in shocks and stressors to vulnerable nations and communities, including in the United States, the Arctic, the Middle East, Africa, Asia and South America, officials said.
https://defensesystems.com/articles/2015/08/07/dod-climate-change-threat-report.aspx
Pentagon planners are "beginning to include the implications of a changing climate in [their] frameworks for managing operational and strategic risks prudently," the report noted. "Moreover, the department is working with other U.S. government departments and agencies, partner nations and many other entities on addressing climate security risks and implications."
http://mashable.com/2015/07/29/pentagon-global-warming-present-threat/#QvVaGahCAGqg
In a report to Congress, the Defense Department said that global warming poses a "present security threat, not strictly a long-term risk."
Sooooo Z…what you're basically saying is that in the current political "climate" (pun intended)…under the current passive administration in which defense spending keeps getting cut…and keeps getting cut...that the Pentagon was smart enough to find and devious enough to exploit a perceived threat viable enough, in this current administrations eyes, to get POTUS/congress to agree to an increase in the DOD budgets.
Sounds about right. Good find, man.
Sounds about right. Good find, man.
You are such a fool and are totally incapable of arguing in favor of anthropogenic global warming. If you had any idea how stupid it is to post that as any kind of proof of anything other than the gullibility of the masses, you would never post another word about it.
This has much more weight than your plea to authority. It's called science.
The IPCC published the "Hockey Stick" graph from Mann, Bradley and Hughes (MBH 1998), in its Third Assessment Report, which shows little change in temperatures for hundreds of years then a sharp increase recently in the last hundred years. This temperature history was given bold prominence in the IPCC reports, distributed to all Canadian households and used to support major policy decisions involving the expenditure of billions of dollars. The IPCC argues that there was little natural climate change over the last 1000 years, so that the temperature change over the last 100 years is unusual and likely caused by human activities. A senior IPCC researcher said in an email "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period." Christopher Monckton says "They did this by giving one technique, measurement of tree-rings from bristlecone pines, 390 times more weighting than other techniques but didn't disclose this. Tree-rings are wider in warmer years, but pine tree rings are also wider when there's more carbon dioxide in the air: it's plant food. This carbon dioxide fertilization distorts the calculations. They said they had included 24 data sets going back to 1400. Without saying so, they left out the set showing the medieval warm period, tucking it into a folder marked "Censored Data". They used a computer model to draw the graph from the data, but two Canadians [Ross McKitrick and Stephen McIntyre] later found that the model almost always drew hockey-sticks even if they fed in random, electronic "red noise" because it used a faulty algorithm." The MBH 1998 report was never properly peer reviewed before the IPCC used it in their publications.
See here for comments from Christopher Monckton.
- See more at: http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=711#UHI
And yet, eight hours later, you are still posting on this thread. When are you going to get it that you are being baited for the general amusement of the posters here?
Do you really think for a moment that I post in this thread to argue science with you blubbering idiots? I post in this thread to underscore how utterly ignorant you fools are. I enjoy pounding that point home. I don't have the slightest interest in trying to convince a bunch of primitive slope headed molecularly deprived mutant backwoods hayseeds of anything more advanced that how to dig a new pit for your outhouses.
Reverse trolling. You're not that advanced yet.
When you can wade into an obvious troll, turn the tables, and turn the wannabe trolls into whimpering charred little charcoal biscuits, then you will finally understand.
![[laughing]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/laugh.r191677.gif "Laughing [laughing]")
You're getting better at this. That part actually made me laugh. Bonus points awarded. More importantly a "like" has been bestowed upon thee.
You can't argue science. Science proves you are wrong. You can only toss insults like a monkey flinging shit. Hell, it doesn't even take science to prove you're wrong, common sense does it easily. You have never made one scientific statement to prove your side. You only say that the Zambian Veterinarian Society agrees it is real.
If your science proves me wrong then forward your findings to the IPCC so that they can propagate it out to the Science Academies around the world to test your research. You will undoubtedly win a Nobel Prize for your work here on this message board.
Your 18 year hiatus is particularly good since it was only totally destroyed in front of Congress by a retired Navy Admiral. Keep up the good work.
Your 18 year hiatus is particularly good since it was only totally destroyed in front of Congress by a retired Navy Admiral. Keep up the good work.
Man, you may be thicker than I thought you were. The IPCC knows full well that the entire thing has been manipulated and exaggerated from the very beginning. They propagate the misinformation that fools the gullibles, like you. You dismiss all the available information that proves it just isn't true. Man does not affect the climate. We just aren't as important to the Earth as you want us to be.
So well known that not a single scientific organization in the world will support it. Not in communist China, Former Soviet Union... nobody. As they all want to help liberals in the United States. Got it. Brilliant plan.
Our only hope is that all the money Big Energy is pouring into the denying will save us. I'm glad you'e seen through their plan. Thanks for sharing it with us.
Our only hope is that all the money Big Energy is pouring into the denying will save us. I'm glad you'e seen through their plan. Thanks for sharing it with us.
You also continue to deny the false reports that the IPCC has put out. That they have been caught manipulating data to fuel the "climate change" agenda. They have been caught red handed and exposed as a fraud.
20 climate change threads later and you still have yet to address this topic…and you still reel off all of these "science academies" that do nothing but regurgitate whatever the IPCC recommends in their falsified and doctored up reports.
So you want me to provide you with the name of a scientific institute that will say there is no problem and we don't want any money?
Read this instead.
FACT: The HadCRUT3 surface temperature index, produced by the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office and the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, shows warming to 1878, cooling to 1911, warming to 1941, cooling to 1964, warming to 1998 and cooling through 2011. The warming rate from 1964 to 1998 was the same as the previous warming from 1911 to 1941. Satellites, weather balloons and ground stations all show cooling since 2001. The mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8 C over the 20th century is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects"). Two science teams have shown that correcting the surface temperature record for the effects of urban development would reduce the reported warming trend over land from 1980 by half. See here. - See more at: http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3#sthash.VhpJ31Id.dpuf
Read this instead.
FACT: The HadCRUT3 surface temperature index, produced by the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office and the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, shows warming to 1878, cooling to 1911, warming to 1941, cooling to 1964, warming to 1998 and cooling through 2011. The warming rate from 1964 to 1998 was the same as the previous warming from 1911 to 1941. Satellites, weather balloons and ground stations all show cooling since 2001. The mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8 C over the 20th century is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects"). Two science teams have shown that correcting the surface temperature record for the effects of urban development would reduce the reported warming trend over land from 1980 by half. See here. - See more at: http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3#sthash.VhpJ31Id.dpuf
"The Friends of Science Society (FoS) is a Canadian non-profit group based in Calgary, Alberta, that is "made up of active and retired engineers, earth scientists and other professionals, as well as many concerned Canadians, who believe the science behind the Kyoto Protocol is questionable." [1]
In an August 12, 2006, article The Globe and Mail revealed that the group had received significant funding via anonymous, indirect donations from the oil industry, including a major grant from the Science Education Fund, a donor-directed, flow-through charitable fund at the Calgary Foundation. The donations were funnelled through a University of Calgary trust account research set up and controlled by U of C Professor Barry Cooper. [2] [3] The revelations were based largely on the prior investigations of Desmogblog.com, which had reported on the background of FoS scientific advisors and Cooper's role in FoS funding."
In an August 12, 2006, article The Globe and Mail revealed that the group had received significant funding via anonymous, indirect donations from the oil industry, including a major grant from the Science Education Fund, a donor-directed, flow-through charitable fund at the Calgary Foundation. The donations were funnelled through a University of Calgary trust account research set up and controlled by U of C Professor Barry Cooper. [2] [3] The revelations were based largely on the prior investigations of Desmogblog.com, which had reported on the background of FoS scientific advisors and Cooper's role in FoS funding."
FACT: The computer models assume that CO2 is the primary climate driver, and that the Sun has an insignificant effect on climate. Using the output of a model to verify its initial assumption is committing the logical fallacy of circular reasoning. Computer models can be made to roughly match the 20th century temperature rise by adjusting many input parameters and using strong positive feedbacks. They do not "prove" anything. Also, computer models predicting global warming are incapable of properly including the effects of the sun, cosmic rays and the clouds. The sun is a major cause of temperature variation on the earth surface as its received radiation changes all the time, This happens largely in cyclical fashion. The number and the lengths in time of sunspots can be correlated very closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Varying intensity of solar heat radiation affects the surface temperature of the oceans and the currents. Warmer ocean water expels gases, some of which are CO2. Solar radiation interferes with the cosmic ray flux, thus influencing the amount ionized nuclei which control cloud cover. - See more at: http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3#sthash.VhpJ31Id.dpuf
