PDA

View Full Version : Scientific silencers on the left are trying to shut down climate skepticism




Brian4Liberty
04-25-2016, 11:46 AM
Scientific silencers on the left are trying to shut down climate skepticism (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-settled-science-consensus-du-jour/2016/04/22/46acd802-07de-11e6-a12f-ea5aed7958dc_story.html)
By George F. Will - April 22


Authoritarianism, always latent in progressivism, is becoming explicit. Progressivism’s determination to regulate thought by regulating speech is apparent in the campaign by 16 states’ attorneys general and those of the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands, none Republican, to criminalize skepticism about the supposedly “settled” conclusions of climate science.

Four core tenets of progressivism are: First, history has a destination. Second, progressives uniquely discern it. (Barack Obama frequently declares things to be on or opposed to “the right side of history.”) Third, politics should be democratic but peripheral to governance, which is the responsibility of experts scientifically administering the regulatory state. Fourth, enlightened progressives should enforce limits on speech (witness IRS suppression of conservative advocacy groups) in order to prevent thinking unhelpful to history’s progressive unfolding.

Progressivism is already enforced on campuses by restrictions on speech that might produce what progressives consider retrograde intellectual diversity. Now, from the so-called party of science, a.k.a. Democrats, comes a campaign to criminalize debate about science.

“The debate is settled,” says Obama. “Climate change is a fact.” Indeed. The epithet “climate change deniers,” obviously coined to stigmatize skeptics as akin to Holocaust deniers, is designed to obscure something obvious: Of course the climate is changing; it never is not changing — neither before nor after the Medieval Warm Period (end of the 9th century to the 13th century) and the Little Ice Age (1640s to 1690s), neither of which was caused by fossil fuels.

Today, debatable questions include: To what extent is human activity contributing to climate change? Are climate change models, many of which have generated projections refuted by events, suddenly reliable enough to predict the trajectory of change? Is change necessarily ominous because today’s climate is necessarily optimum? Are the costs, in money expended and freedom curtailed, of combating climate change less than the cost of adapting to it?

But these questions may not forever be debatable. The initial target of Democratic “scientific” silencers is ExxonMobil, which they hope to demonstrate misled investors and the public about climate change. There is, however, no limiting principle to restrain unprincipled people from punishing research entities, advocacy groups and individuals.
...
The party of science, busy protecting science from scrutiny, has forgotten Karl Popper (1902-1994), the philosopher whose “The Open Society and Its Enemies” warned against people incapable of distinguishing between certainty and certitude. In his essay “Science as Falsification,” Popper explains why “the criterion of a scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.” America’s party of science seems eager to insulate its scientific theories from the possibility of refutation.
...
These garden-variety authoritarians are eager to regulate us into conformity with the “settled” consensus du jour, whatever it is. But they are progressives, so it is for our own good.
...
More: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-settled-science-consensus-du-jour/2016/04/22/46acd802-07de-11e6-a12f-ea5aed7958dc_story.html

donnay
04-25-2016, 11:48 AM
Of course they are...the first amendment be damned.

dannno
04-25-2016, 12:00 PM
I've been threatened on other sites for talking about global warming, they have said I should be put in jail or in a camp.

angelatc
04-25-2016, 12:03 PM
Today, debatable questions include: To what extent is human activity contributing to climate change? Are climate change models, many of which have generated projections refuted by events, suddenly reliable enough to predict the trajectory of change? Is change necessarily ominous because today’s climate is necessarily optimum? Are the costs, in money expended and freedom curtailed, of combating climate change less than the cost of adapting to it?

This.

CaptUSA
04-25-2016, 12:13 PM
Today, debatable questions include: To what extent is human activity contributing to climate change? Are climate change models, many of which have generated projections refuted by events, suddenly reliable enough to predict the trajectory of change? Is change necessarily ominous because today’s climate is necessarily optimum? Are the costs, in money expended and freedom curtailed, of combating climate change less than the cost of adapting to it?

Ya gotta love Will when he gets it right. These are the questions one must act these climate-change freaks. Go ahead and cede their argument (even if you disagree with them), because the follow-ups are always more entertaining.

These folks have convinced themselves that humans are to blame for our changing climate. They've also convinced themselves that we must combat it because today's climate (or rather, the climate they remember from the rose-colored youth) is ideal. They've even convinced themselves that we can reverse our course if we would just try hard enough and they know we have smart people who have the solutions. But when you get down to the cost of adapting versus the cost of reversing, they've never done the calculation. They just think it's a given that we must do the latter.

donnay
04-25-2016, 12:23 PM
Genesis 8:22
While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.

euphemia
04-25-2016, 12:46 PM
If they can control what you say, they can control what you do, and eventually they will control what you think.

Ronin Truth
04-25-2016, 02:59 PM
Terrestrial Atmosphere
Surface pressure: 1014 mb
Surface density: 1.217 kg/m3
Scale height: 8.5 km
Total mass of atmosphere: 5.1 x 1018 kg
Total mass of hydrosphere: 1.4 x 1021 kg
Average temperature: 288 K (15 C)
Diurnal temperature range: 283 K to 293 K (10 to 20 C)
Wind speeds: 0 to 100 m/s
Mean molecular weight: 28.97 g/mole

Atmospheric composition (by volume, dry air):

Major : 78.084% Nitrogen (N2), 20.946% Oxygen (O2),

Minor (ppm): Argon (Ar) - 9340; Carbon Dioxide (CO2) - 400
Neon (Ne) - 18.18; Helium (He) - 5.24; CH4 - 1.7

Krypton (Kr) - 1.14; Hydrogen (H2) - 0.55

Water is highly variable, typically makes up about 1% (~10,000 ppm)

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/earthfact.html

luctor-et-emergo
04-25-2016, 04:00 PM
I've been threatened on other sites for talking about global warming, they have said I should be put in jail or in a camp.


This.

http://www.genesisveracityfoundation.com/beforeiceqge.jpg
This shit actually looks scary to me, even though I like skiing. ;)

Madison320
05-03-2016, 01:48 PM
The earth is over 4 billion years old. There have been thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of similar warming trends and 99.99% of them occurred before man existed. Why would THIS warming trend be caused by man? I'm not saying it's impossible but the odds are astronomical that this warming trend is man made.

timosman
05-03-2016, 01:52 PM
I've been threatened on other sites for talking about global warming, they have said I should be put in jail or in a camp.

Try doing this IRL in Cali :D

PRB
05-03-2016, 03:08 PM
This.

are they actually avoiding debate on it? or only denial?

PRB
05-03-2016, 03:09 PM
The earth is over 4 billion years old. There have been thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of similar warming trends and 99.99% of them occurred before man existed. Why would THIS warming trend be caused by man? I'm not saying it's impossible but the odds are astronomical that this warming trend is man made.


Forget whether it's man made, can we agree first that it's happening?

If you knew a hurricane, flood or drought was coming, do you argue whether it's caused by man or first acknowledge it's happening so you can prepare?

kpitcher
05-03-2016, 03:40 PM
The earth is over 4 billion years old. There have been thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of similar warming trends and 99.99% of them occurred before man existed. Why would THIS warming trend be caused by man? I'm not saying it's impossible but the odds are astronomical that this warming trend is man made.
The science is actually solid that yes, the atmospheric CO2 has risen in proportion to fossil fuel usage over the past 100+ years. It's obvious if you consider fossil fuels trapped CO2 from millions of years ago and we're releasing them rapidly. Of course models change as technology increases, sure it's a complex problem, however the predominant peer reviewed science shows man made issues with causing global warming.

Madison320
05-03-2016, 03:45 PM
The science is actually solid that yes, the atmospheric CO2 has risen in proportion to fossil fuel usage over the past 100+ years. It's obvious if you consider fossil fuels trapped CO2 from millions of years ago and we're releasing them rapidly. Of course models change as technology increases, sure it's a complex problem, however the predominant peer reviewed science shows man made issues with causing global warming.

What caused the thousands of warming episodes in the past?

PRB
05-03-2016, 03:46 PM
however the predominant peer reviewed science shows man made issues with causing global warming.

issues with causing?

PRB
05-03-2016, 03:47 PM
What caused the thousands of warming episodes in the past?

Irrelevant if you acknowledge it's happening now, because if we were not talking about prevention or counteracting it, we should still know enough to prepare for it.

just because you can't prevent or avoid earthquakes and meteors, doesn't mean you shouldn't prepare or know of it.

Madison320
05-03-2016, 04:09 PM
Forget whether it's man made, can we agree first that it's happening?

If you knew a hurricane, flood or drought was coming, do you argue whether it's caused by man or first acknowledge it's happening so you can prepare?

If it's happening it's very slight. The average temperatures where I live are still about the same.

One thing that bothers me is the that they attempt to calculate an "average" temperature of the world and use that for comparison. That makes no sense to me. It's too easy to manipulate by changing monitor locations. If you want to check for change you should be averaging deltas at individual sites. The whole temperature thing seems invalid to me. There's a million ways to manipulate the data. A better check would be to look at the size of the ice at the poles. From what I've read the north pole is shrinking but the south pole is growing. It's hard to get good data though since most sources are biased one way or another. Exxon is not an impartial judge and neither are the climate scientists who's livelihood depends on the existence of man made global warming. Maybe an anonymous poll of retired scientists.

And that "97% of scientists thing is so idiotic", it practically discredits the whole global warming thing by itself.

Madison320
05-03-2016, 04:11 PM
Irrelevant if you acknowledge it's happening now, because if we were not talking about prevention or counteracting it, we should still know enough to prepare for it.

just because you can't prevent or avoid earthquakes and meteors, doesn't mean you shouldn't prepare or know of it.


I agree, but that's not the problem. The problem is that they want to extort money from us.

angelatc
05-03-2016, 10:31 PM
are they actually avoiding debate on it? or only denial?

Honestly, I don't know. I stay out of it because I don't understand it. But the fact that they think that taxes can fix it makes me incredibly suspicious.

pcosmar
05-03-2016, 11:18 PM
Forget whether it's man made, can we agree first that it's happening?


what is happening?
Minor weather fluctuations,,and weather cycles,, Totally normal course of events?
or some catastrophic trend that will forever change life on this planet?

My opinion is after listening to all and researching myself.. and the observations of almost 59 years

There is no real change other than the day to day and year to year fluctuations..

And further,, Even if there was some kind of noticeable and measurable change, regardless or warming or cooling, I have the most serious doubts about the ability of governments to do anything about it.
In the very worst case,, they would try. (And fuck up worse)

pcosmar
05-03-2016, 11:21 PM
just because you can't prevent or avoid earthquakes and meteors, doesn't mean you shouldn't prepare or know of it.

Just how would you "prepare" for a meteor strike?

donnay
05-03-2016, 11:22 PM
I agree, but that's not the problem. The problem is that they want to extort money from us.

Not only extort money out of you but control you. No fireplaces/wood stoves/campfires to keep you warm in the winter--etc...

donnay
05-03-2016, 11:22 PM
Just how would you "prepare" for a meteor strike?

Duck and cover!

PRB
05-03-2016, 11:24 PM
If it's happening it's very slight. The average temperatures where I live are still about the same.


Yeah, and I don't see government in my backyard, therefore there's no government



One thing that bothers me is the that they attempt to calculate an "average" temperature of the world and use that for comparison. That makes no sense to me.


That's because you know nothing about weighted averages, or patterns.



It's too easy to manipulate by changing monitor locations. If you want to check for change you should be averaging deltas at individual sites. The whole temperature thing seems invalid to me. There's a million ways to manipulate the data. A better check would be to look at the size of the ice at the poles.


There's a very easy way to settle this argument.

Forget whether we're talking about warming or cooling.
Forget whether it's caused by the sun or man's CO2.
Ask who has the greatest prediction accuracy.

It's not going to be people who say "it's not happening" or "it's the sun".
Who is best at predicting the next 5-15 years of floods, hurricanes, droughts, snows. That will matter regardless of your political agenda.



From what I've read the north pole is shrinking but the south pole is growing. It's hard to get good data though since most sources are biased one way or another.


Therefore it's all a coin toss?



Exxon is not an impartial judge and neither are the climate scientists who's livelihood depends on the existence of man made global warming. Maybe an anonymous poll of retired scientists.


Science is not a democracy.



And that "97% of scientists thing is so idiotic", it practically discredits the whole global warming thing by itself.

How so?

PRB
05-03-2016, 11:27 PM
what is happening?
Minor weather fluctuations,,and weather cycles,, Totally normal course of events?


So Houston's flood, Detroit's flood 2 years ago, Arizona's flood last year, Sandy, were all normal?



or some catastrophic trend that will forever change life on this planet?


It doesn't need to forever change, how many Sandys and Katrinas can you take before you're bankrupt from repairing?



My opinion is after listening to all and researching myself.. and the observations of almost 59 years

There is no real change other than the day to day and year to year fluctuations..


So Sandy and Katrina were totally normal and nobody should be surprised, right?

California's drought is totally normal and nobody should expect otherwise, right?



And further,, Even if there was some kind of noticeable and measurable change, regardless or warming or cooling, I have the most serious doubts about the ability of governments to do anything about it.
In the very worst case,, they would try. (And $#@! up worse)

I am TOTALLY WITH YOU on not supporting the government. I am for accurate understanding of weather and climate to reduce damages, prepare for disasters, something you can't do if you keep denying that climate change and unstable weather patterns are coming.

PRB
05-03-2016, 11:27 PM
Just how would you "prepare" for a meteor strike?

Depends on how big and serious it is. Would you rather not know?

PRB
05-03-2016, 11:30 PM
Honestly, I don't know. I stay out of it because I don't understand it. But the fact that they think that taxes can fix it makes me incredibly suspicious.

I'm against taxes too, but I'm not against knowledge.

If climatologists can predict droughts, floods, snows, hurricanes, I'd try to prepare some for them.

Otherwise, I'd be damned if I'm caught off guard like Katrina, Sandy, Houston's flood, Detroit's flood, Arizona's flood.

Whether they're normal, man-made or fixable, if you can predict disasters, you'd be foolish and irresponsible to ignore them.

PRB
05-03-2016, 11:32 PM
I agree, but that's not the problem. The problem is that they want to extort money from us.

then oppose their extortion.

What I find most laughable is that people deny deny deny global warming, then lie lie lie about the globe cooling, they must think the government is stupid and won't turn around tomorrow to tax for cooling.

How about, get the facts straight, and oppose taxes and regulations anyway.

If the government said global cooling is true and we need to be taxed, would the same people flip and say "oh no, global warming is definitely true!!!"

Or, would they finally realize whether it's warming or cooling, neither justifies taxation?

Taxation is wrong, PERIOD. Why argue with scientists when you don't have to?

pcosmar
05-04-2016, 08:02 AM
I am TOTALLY WITH YOU on not supporting the government. I am for accurate understanding of weather and climate to reduce damages, prepare for disasters, something you can't do if you keep denying that climate change and unstable weather patterns are coming.

Yes it is normal.. It is normal weather for this planet.
and I have no problem with studying weather patterns or attempting to predict..

Let me know when these scientists can reliably predict weather.. Because they are fully unable to do so presently.
If they can not predict it they certainly can not control it.

I have no problems with science,, but am full up with disgust at pseudoscience.

osan
05-04-2016, 09:03 AM
The science is actually solid that yes, the atmospheric CO2 has risen in proportion to fossil fuel usage over the past 100+ years. It's obvious if you consider fossil fuels trapped CO2 from millions of years ago and we're releasing them rapidly. Of course models change as technology increases, sure it's a complex problem, however the predominant peer reviewed science shows man made issues with causing global warming.

Then please explain the unaltered thermodynamic state of the planet.

smokemonsc
05-04-2016, 09:43 AM
So Houston's flood, Detroit's flood 2 years ago, Arizona's flood last year, Sandy, were all normal?

So Sandy and Katrina were totally normal and nobody should be surprised, right?

California's drought is totally normal and nobody should expect otherwise, right?



Yes to all the above.

http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_24993601/california-drought-past-dry-periods-have-lasted-more

Above link is just one example of how, if you go back far enough there are ample examples of floods hurricanes, droughts, etc happening at higher and lower rates.

PRB - I do agree with you that we should focus on what the facts show us. I think there is a lot of value in trying to predict weather and climate. However the examples you gave above are two examples of weather (hurricanes and floods) and one example of climate which has been proven to not be unique to our time period. Bottom line is we need more data.....lots more.

Another problem is using statistics to prove a point with a sample set that is incredibly small. There is no accurate way to determine how many hurricanes, floods, etc occurred prior to ~1900, especially in the world's oceans. We're talking about using a sample set of 100....that's not randomly chosen, from a population of millions (or billions) of years...the margin of error for such a calculation, even for a confidence level of 90% would be ridiculous (talking about +-40% MOE or worse) and worthless.

PRB
05-04-2016, 12:19 PM
Yes to all the above.

http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_24993601/california-drought-past-dry-periods-have-lasted-more

Above link is just one example of how, if you go back far enough there are ample examples of floods hurricanes, droughts, etc happening at higher and lower rates.

PRB - I do agree with you that we should focus on what the facts show us. I think there is a lot of value in trying to predict weather and climate. However the examples you gave above are two examples of weather (hurricanes and floods) and one example of climate which has been proven to not be unique to our time period. Bottom line is we need more data.....lots more.

Another problem is using statistics to prove a point with a sample set that is incredibly small. There is no accurate way to determine how many hurricanes, floods, etc occurred prior to ~1900, especially in the world's oceans. We're talking about using a sample set of 100....that's not randomly chosen, from a population of millions (or billions) of years...the margin of error for such a calculation, even for a confidence level of 90% would be ridiculous (talking about +-40% MOE or worse) and worthless.

So Sandy and Katrina victims deserved it, because it's all normal and expected.

Madison320
05-04-2016, 03:59 PM
So Sandy and Katrina victims deserved it, because it's all normal and expected.

????

I see why you have that red dot.

One of the biggest problems with natural disasters is when the government forces insurance companies to cover people in high risk areas. There'd be a lot less people living in high risk areas if the govt didn't subsidize it.

PRB
05-04-2016, 05:49 PM
????

I see why you have that red dot.

One of the biggest problems with natural disasters is when the government forces insurance companies to cover people in high risk areas. There'd be a lot less people living in high risk areas if the govt didn't subsidize it.

how is that not saying the deserved it?

how exactly were those places 'high risk'? according to whom?

smokemonsc
05-06-2016, 11:11 AM
That's what you took from my post? Really? lol. My post only proves that droughts are a part of Californian history. Any emotional baggage you attach to that in an attempt to distract from the facts are nothing more than nonsense.

FindLiberty
05-06-2016, 12:38 PM
Milo said it appears to be crap because of the way he has witnessed them
fudging reports by rewording to paint fearful future or throwing out othr
reports because they indicated there is no problem at all.

I think man-made climate change is a farce, because Milo said so.

PRB
05-06-2016, 01:48 PM
That's what you took from my post? Really? lol. My post only proves that droughts are a part of Californian history.


How predictable are they? Are you saying anybody who lives in CA consents to expensive water, like Flynt or Detroit?



Any emotional baggage you attach to that in an attempt to distract from the facts are nothing more than nonsense.

No emotions here, just getting the facts straight to see if you'll back out by emotion.

PRB
05-06-2016, 02:42 PM
Milo said it appears to be crap because of the way he has witnessed them
fudging reports by rewording to paint fearful future or throwing out othr
reports because they indicated there is no problem at all.

I think man-made climate change is a farce, because Milo said so.

I don't trust a homosexual attention whore for scientific knowledge.

Dr.3D
05-06-2016, 03:09 PM
So Sandy and Katrina victims deserved it, because it's all normal and expected.
Anybody who lives on the coast should expect the hurricanes that happen. It's part of living on the coast and it's normal. It's been happening for as long as people have been living on the coast.

smokemonsc
05-06-2016, 04:30 PM
How predictable are they? Are you saying anybody who lives in CA consents to expensive water, like Flynt or Detroit?



No emotions here, just getting the facts straight to see if you'll back out by emotion.

Lol, still waiting for you to disprove the facts I presented. Keep on keepin on!

They may not consent to it, but guess what....doesn't fucking matter. Water is more expensive there. Deal with it.

Brian4Liberty
05-07-2016, 04:19 PM
Climatologists, meteorologists, economists, eh. They all have about the same luck in predicting the future.

PRB
05-07-2016, 06:07 PM
Anybody who lives on the coast should expect the hurricanes that happen. It's part of living on the coast and it's normal. It's been happening for as long as people have been living on the coast.

Therefore f them if they're not prepared, right?

PRB
05-07-2016, 06:07 PM
Climatologists, meteorologists, economists, eh. They all have about the same luck in predicting the future.

Wrong, Austrian economists are never wrong.

PRB
05-07-2016, 06:08 PM
They may not consent to it, but guess what....doesn't $#@!ing matter.

Consent doesn't matter? We got a fascist here?

Dr.3D
05-07-2016, 06:16 PM
Therefore f them if they're not prepared, right?
That's right, if they didn't have insurance, it's their fault. It's the high price one pays when living on the coast.

PRB
05-07-2016, 06:18 PM
That's right, if they didn't have insurance, it's their fault. It's the high price one pays when living on the coast.

what about Houston, Arizona and Detroit?

Were they caught off guard? or should've seen it coming?

Dr.3D
05-07-2016, 08:37 PM
what about Houston, Arizona and Detroit?

Were they caught off guard? or should've seen it coming?

Can't fool me there, none of those cities are on the coast.

PRB
05-07-2016, 08:39 PM
Can't fool me there, none of those cities are on the coast.

My point exactly, so why did they flood? Was it predictable? Should they have been prepared?

NorthCarolinaLiberty
05-07-2016, 10:20 PM
My point exactly, so why did they flood? Was it predictable? Should they have been prepared?


The deadliest floods in world history occurred before 1980-2016, which is the pivotal time period cited by many for marked temperature increases. Many of these floods were hundreds of years before the Industrial Revolution. More people generally died in these earlier floods than die today.

Did anybody actually die in the Detroit floods? Was it tens of thousands, like the numbers from hundreds of years ago? Is your idea of preparation to prevent every ill effect from every calamity and mishap?

PRB
05-07-2016, 10:30 PM
The deadliest floods in world history occurred before 1980-2016, which is the pivotal time period cited by many for marked temperature increases.


You don't need anybody dead to be inconvenienced.



Many of these floods were hundreds of years before the Industrial Revolution. More people generally died in these earlier floods than die today.


How many floods do you want at your house? I promise nobody will die. I doubt you'd be happy to pay another penny of taxes in your modern life, yet you bring up how much worse life was in the past as if death is the only thing you worry about.



Did anybody actually die in the Detroit floods? Was it tens of thousands, like the numbers from hundreds of years ago? Is your idea of preparation to prevent every ill effect from every calamity and mishap?

Pretty sure zero died.

My idea is to prevent property damage, waste, or excuses for government to intervene.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
05-07-2016, 10:37 PM
My idea is to prevent property damage, waste, or excuses for government to intervene.


Your idea?! What idea? You once said you would build your house on a river in anticipation of that river drying up in 25 years.






how exactly were those places 'high risk'? according to whom?

I would like you to run an experiment so that you--PRB--are the "whom" able to assess risk.

Go to your kitchen. Get a soup bowl and place it in the sink. Run some water in the bowl. Record your findings.

Dump the water from the bowl. Turn the bowl upside down in the sink. Run the faucet again. Record your findings.

Report what you found in your next post.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
05-07-2016, 10:47 PM
How many floods do you want at your house?

I don't want any, which is why I made it a point to buy on high ground.




You don't need anybody dead to be inconvenienced....

...as if death is the only thing you worry about.

That's the difference between me and a progressive like you. Progressives think that they can control every mishap and life event, much of it through government. They want to control everything that makes their life "inconvenienced." The real kicker is that they don't even want to take responsibility to do this. They think someone else should do this. They have no common sense, and think they can build their house on a river because global warming will cause the river to dry up in 25 years. If that does not happen and their house floods, then it's always the fault of someone else. Those people bearing blame should be punished, according to people like you who don't want to take responsibility.

PRB
05-07-2016, 10:59 PM
I don't want any, which is why I made it a point to buy on high ground.


So anybody who can't afford to live on high ground should prepare for floods, right?



That's the difference between me and a progressive like you.


I'm not a progressive.



Progressives think that they can control every mishap and life event, much of it through government. They want to control everything that makes their life "inconvenienced."


I don't think I can control anything, but I like to know things that are predictable, just like you'd avoid buying houses unless it's on high ground.



The real kicker is that they don't even want to take responsibility to do this. They think someone else should do this. They have no common sense, and think they can build their house on a river because global warming will cause the river to dry up in 25 years.


If it's true, would you let that opporutnity and land go to waste?



If that does not happen and their house floods, then it's always the fault of someone else. Those people bearing blame should be punished, according to people like you who don't want to take responsibility.

Yeah, so Houston, Detroit and Arizona all deserved their flood, their own fault. They should know it was coming.

PRB
05-07-2016, 11:00 PM
Your idea?! What idea? You once said you would build your house on a river in anticipation of that river drying up in 25 years.






I would like you to run an experiment so that you--PRB--are the "whom" able to assess risk.

Go to your kitchen. Get a soup bowl and place it in the sink. Run some water in the bowl. Record your findings.

Dump the water from the bowl. Turn the bowl upside down in the sink. Run the faucet again. Record your findings.

Report what you found in your next post.



"Taxation is wrong? The sooner you stop your baloney, the sooner the negs stop."

PRB
05-07-2016, 11:02 PM
Your idea?! What idea? You once said you would build your house on a river in anticipation of that river drying up in 25 years.



No, I said I'd build a house IF it was drying up and expected to last for 25 years.

As for "What idea" it was in response to you asking "Is your idea of preparation to prevent every ill effect from every calamity and mishap?"



I would like you to run an experiment so that you--PRB--are the "whom" able to assess risk.

Go to your kitchen. Get a soup bowl and place it in the sink. Run some water in the bowl. Record your findings.

Dump the water from the bowl. Turn the bowl upside down in the sink. Run the faucet again. Record your findings.

Report what you found in your next post.
what am I reporting? where the water went? or how far it splashed?

NorthCarolinaLiberty
05-07-2016, 11:15 PM
So anybody who can't afford to live on high ground should prepare for floods, right?

I don't generally find elevation to be an income issue, but why are you asking me this?





... but I like to know things that are predictable...

No, I said I'd build a house IF it was drying up and expected to last for 25 years.



This is my point. You want to predict something (1st sentence), but then exercise absolutely no common sense (2nd sentence). You then expect your lack of common sense to be the problem of someone else.

PRB
05-07-2016, 11:26 PM
I don't generally find elevation to be an income issue, but why are you asking me this?


I believe people who don't prepare for what they know are dipshits and deserve to lose, I wonder if you're willing to say the same.

However, I don't fault people who DON'T OR CAN'T know it. So again, were people in Detroit, Houston and Arizona fair game when they were flooded? or was it completely surprise that nobody would have seen?



This is my point. You want to predict something (1st sentence), but then exercise absolutely no common sense (2nd sentence).


False. I want to predict something SO I can make the decision what to do AND I can laugh at the people who don't.

Are you saying common sense says nothing dries and stays for 25 years?



You then expect your lack of common sense to be the problem of someone else.
Nope. But I would expect my lack of certain knowledge the fault of somebody else, or I'd partially blame people who deny certain facts, misleading peopel to act differently, to be somewhat responsible.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
05-07-2016, 11:34 PM
Nope. But I would expect my lack of certain knowledge the fault of somebody else, or....


Good to know. At least you admit you don't take personal responsibility. I will give you a plus rep for that.





























Ah, just kidding about the plus rep. But at least I won't neg rep you!

PRB
05-07-2016, 11:38 PM
Good to know. Confirms what I said about you not taking personal responsibility.

so everything I don't know or was told untrue is my fault?

NorthCarolinaLiberty
05-07-2016, 11:41 PM
so everything I don't know or was told untrue is my fault?


You just said your lack of knowledge is the fault of someone else.

smokemonsc
05-08-2016, 12:10 AM
Consent doesn't matter? We got a fascist here?

I'm a fascist because victims of hurricane Sandy didn't consent to hurricanes? People get to consent to weather?

Just....wow. You are mentally and emotionally unhinged...probably a bit insane too.

specsaregood
05-08-2016, 12:26 AM
Scientific silencers on the left are trying to shut down climate skepticism

What the heck is "climate skepticism"? Are there actually people out there that question the existence of climate?

NorthCarolinaLiberty
05-08-2016, 01:10 AM
Hey look; it's PRB in his new house by the river. Good thing global warmists declared that river would be safe!



https://media.giphy.com/media/esB20S2G29w1G/giphy.gif

NorthCarolinaLiberty
05-08-2016, 01:46 AM
...I'd partially blame people who deny certain facts, misleading peopel to act differently, to be somewhat responsible.


Hey PRB, these experts presented a map showing parts of New York City under water by 2015. I believed them and moved out. They cost me. They made me "act differently." I hold them "somewhat responsible."

You said you have friends who are district attorneys, so do you know some good lawyers? I am going to sue!!!




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_WHQkPrhjg



New York City underwater? Gas over $9 a gallon? A carton of milk costs almost $13? Welcome to June 12, 2015. Or at least that was the wildly-inaccurate version of 2015 predicted by ABC News exactly seven years ago. Appearing on Good Morning America in 2008, Bob Woodruff hyped Earth 2100, a special that pushed apocalyptic predictions of the then-futuristic 2015.The segment included supposedly prophetic videos, such as a teenager declaring, "It's June 8th, 2015. One carton of milk is $12.99." (On the actual June 8, 2015, a gallon of milk cost, on average, $3.39.) Another clip featured this prediction for the current year: "Gas reached over $9 a gallon." (In reality, gas costs an average of $2.75.)

PRB
05-08-2016, 03:32 AM
What the heck is "climate skepticism"? Are there actually people out there that question the existence of climate?

People that are skeptical of climate changing the way scientists claim it's changing.

PRB
05-08-2016, 03:32 AM
Hey PRB, these experts presented a map showing parts of New York City under water by 2015. I believed them and moved out. They cost me. They made me "act differently." I hold them "somewhat responsible."

You said you have friends who are district attorneys, so do you know some good lawyers? I am going to sue!!!




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_WHQkPrhjg

all the good lawyers advertise themselves.

PRB
05-08-2016, 03:33 AM
I'm a fascist because victims of hurricane Sandy didn't consent to hurricanes? People get to consent to weather?

Just....wow. You are mentally and emotionally unhinged...probably a bit insane too.

Yes, people get to consent to anything, I think you meant to ask "Is it required".

PRB
05-08-2016, 03:34 AM
You just said your lack of knowledge is the fault of someone else.

Depends on whether it can be known to start, sure.

ChristianAnarchist
05-08-2016, 05:06 AM
Another nonsense thread about "the planet" and how us little insignificant ants are going to destroy it. What a bunch of crap. There's no way burning fuel could ever affect this big blue ball of ours. This planet has gone through alot worse disaster than what we can dish out and come through fine. Don't believe me? Ask Carlin...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tncnWp67wQI

osan
05-08-2016, 05:49 AM
[Progressives]think they can build their house on a river because global warming will cause the river to dry up in 25 years.

Sometimes, but I find that far more often it is their sense of self-importance that drives the view on such matters. They build houses where nobody ought to because they feel they are entitled to do so and that it must all work out the way they expect. The self-absorbed Californian epitomizes this, as well as those in northern NJ. The former build in desert locations where men do not belong, then whine when a wild-fire takes their home, or demand "government" go hunt and kill the mountain lion that ate their children - as if eating one of those things weren't punishment enough.

The latter build... wait for it... in the flood zone of the Passaic River, which floods time and again, those dullards refusing to give in to reason and thereby choosing to rebuild on site for the fourth time in their lives as if this were some noble act of defiance. Where is that sense of defiance when "government" is stomping all over their fundamental rights? Crickets City, apparently. I guess they don't bite the hand that bails their sorry, stoopid selves out of the vats of feces over which they teeter on high-wires while falling-down drunk and into which they inevitably drop, over and over. And THEN they have the nerve to complain to the same government regarding the fact that they can no longer afford to insure their homes for flood, demanding Theye make it affordable, no mind paid to the fact that someone else will be paying for their childishly self-centered and willful stupidity.

PRB
05-08-2016, 12:45 PM
Another nonsense thread about "the planet" and how us little insignificant ants are going to destroy it. What a bunch of crap. There's no way burning fuel could ever affect this big blue ball of ours. This planet has gone through alot worse disaster than what we can dish out and come through fine. Don't believe me? Ask Carlin...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tncnWp67wQI

Pretend we are not talking about whether climate change is man made, just like we know earthquakes and meteors are not.

Does that mean you'll ignore predictions of extreme weather patterns? Sure, you can say "it's all natural, it's nothing new, people had it worse in the past", but would you at least want as much accurate information as possible to act accordingly?

ChristianAnarchist
05-08-2016, 06:04 PM
Pretend we are not talking about whether climate change is man made, just like we know earthquakes and meteors are not.

Does that mean you'll ignore predictions of extreme weather patterns? Sure, you can say "it's all natural, it's nothing new, people had it worse in the past", but would you at least want as much accurate information as possible to act accordingly?

You are right. I DO want accurate information which is exactly WHY I'm discarding everything that comes out of the mouth of theses clowns who live and die by government grants. These are the same clowns who told me in the 60's and 70's how we were heading into an ice age due to our nasty habits and how we were going to be all out of fuel by the 1990's. I lived through those days (maybe you are a bit younger) but I don't take kindly to people making crap up out of whole cloth that wind up costing me money and time. Those "predictions" did not come true and neither will the current crop.

Stop being so damn gullible and listen to what Timothy Leary said: "Question Authroity - even mine". These climate "authorities" are as full of it as their predecessors and I certainly WILL question them. When their bullsheit "hockey stick" graph and twisting of historical data didn't fool us you should have WOKEN UP!!

CPUd
05-08-2016, 06:35 PM
https://i.imgur.com/zuiWmNy.jpg

puppetmaster
05-08-2016, 06:41 PM
https://i.imgur.com/zuiWmNy.jpg

another reason not to vote for these democrats

PRB
05-08-2016, 07:35 PM
You are right. I DO want accurate information which is exactly WHY I'm discarding everything that comes out of the mouth of theses clowns who live and die by government grants.


And you trust who instead?



These are the same clowns who told me in the 60's and 70's how we were heading into an ice age due to our nasty habits and how we were going to be all out of fuel by the 1990's.


This is how I know you don't know what you're talking about. They're not the same people. Scientists did NOT say we're heading to an ice age in the 70s, the media did.



I lived through those days (maybe you are a bit younger) but I don't take kindly to people making crap up out of whole cloth that wind up costing me money and time. Those "predictions" did not come true and neither will the current crop.


Therefore we should expect no more Sandys, Katrinas, Detroit floods, Arizona floods and Houston floods, or should we? Just tell me what you believe and why.



Stop being so damn gullible and listen to what Timothy Leary said: "Question Authroity - even mine". These climate "authorities" are as full of it as their predecessors and I certainly WILL question them. When their bullsheit "hockey stick" graph and twisting of historical data didn't fool us you should have WOKEN UP!!

You're so sure scientists are wrong, but if I asked you who's better at predicting weather, you have no answer, or else, go ahead and tell me how you prepare for your natural disasters? Or are you certain there will be none?

Origanalist
05-08-2016, 08:45 PM
And you trust who instead?
Good question, maybe this guy? http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/08/spencer-on-stossels-science-wars/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YL5Xd0TpZa8





This is how I know you don't know what you're talking about. They're not the same people. Scientists did NOT say we're heading to an ice age in the 70s, the media did.

Scientists did say that, thus the media stories. What do you think they based their stories on?

1970: Ecology professor Kenneth E.F. Watt at the University of California claimed, “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but 11 degrees colder by the year 2000.” Remember… first it was global cooling and the next ice age was upon us…

1971: Stanford University professor Paul Ehrlich, who is perhaps best known for his 1968 book The Population Bomb, predicted, “By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people,” he claimed. “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.” As Calvin Coolidge said, “You lose.”

1988: James Hansen, who headed NASA’s Goddard Institute for three dec*ades was asked by journalist and author Rob Reiss how the “greenhouse effect” would affect the neighborhood outside his window within 20 years (by 2008). “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water,” Hansen claimed. “And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change….” Nope. Manhattan is still there, and is still populated with pigeons.

1989: the Associated Press ran an article headlined: “UN Official Predicts Disaster, Says Greenhouse Effect Could Wipe Some Nations Off Map.” In the piece, the director of the UNEP’s New York office was quoted as claiming that “entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000.” Uh huh.

1990: Princeton professor and lead UN IPCC author Michael Oppenheimer, while working as “chief scientist” for the Environmental Defense Fund, predicted by 1995, the “greenhouse effect” would be “desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots.” By 1996, he added, the Platte River of Nebraska “would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers.” Even ten years after this apocalypse was supposed to befall us, the Platte River still flows. I know because I checked on my still working computer.

2000: Senior Research Scientist David Viner, working at the time for the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, told the U.K. Independent that within “a few years,” snowfall would become “a very rare and exciting event” in Britain. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.” He was quoted in an article, headlined “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past.” Anyone who lived through winter 2014-15 may have a few words for Mr Viner.

2001: The IPCC predicted in its 2001 global-warming report, that the planet would see “warmer winters and fewer cold spells, because of climate change…” But then in 2014 White House Science “Czar” John Holdren said, “A growing body of evidence suggests that the kind of extreme cold being experienced by much of the United States as we speak is a pattern we can expect to see with increasing frequency, as global warming continues.” Wait a minute! I thought the science was settled!! http://ethanallen.org/5-15-15/

Therefore we should expect no more Sandys, Katrinas, Detroit floods, Arizona floods and Houston floods, or should we? Just tell me what you believe and why.

Who the hell said that? None of this is new.


You're so sure scientists are wrong, but if I asked you who's better at predicting weather, you have no answer, or else, go ahead and tell me how you prepare for your natural disasters? Or are you certain there will be none?

Again, nobody is saying that, why do you keep repeating it? We have always had natural disasters, but in the past we weren't dumb enough to clamor for government control to prevent any more from happening.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
05-09-2016, 05:22 AM
... but would you at least want as much accurate information as possible to act accordingly?

Okay, so get your information and act accordingly. What's the issue?

ChristianAnarchist
05-09-2016, 05:25 AM
And you trust who instead?



I trust ME instead... No, I'm not a "scientist". I'm just an old man who's heard it all before and seen how wrong "they" can be. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me...

I have a lifetime of personal observations to base my decisions on and they mean something (at least to me). In the 60''s we had some of the most EXTREME weather of my life (Minnesota). We had summers that would fry you and winters of extreme cold and huge amounts of snow. We survived. I've not seen that kind of weather ever again but I guarantee you one thing - It WILL happen again. I don't know when and I won't be stupid enough to try to predict it. It's called WEATHER for a reason... it CHANGES.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
05-09-2016, 06:31 AM
Scientists did NOT say we're heading to an ice age in the 70s, the media did.






Both scientists and media make these ridiculous claims. These are IPCC people and others who are part of that "97%." Most of these people don't even look like they study this and know what they're talking about.







[By 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry,...Michael Oppenheimer, published in "Dead Heat," St. Martin's Press, 1990.




"In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish." [Paul] Ehrlich, speech during Earth Day, 1970





Within a few years "children just aren't going to know what snow is." Snowfall will be "a very rare and exciting event." Dr. David Viner, senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, interviewed by the UK Independent, March 20, 2000.


http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2010/12/30/botched-environmental-forecasts.html

NorthCarolinaLiberty
05-09-2016, 06:33 AM
PRB,

Last I checked, Nebraska's Platte River is still running. Oppenheimer said it would be dry by 1996. Good thing you did not build your house there because you expected it to dry up.

PRB
05-09-2016, 10:51 AM
Okay, so get your information and act accordingly. What's the issue?

No issue, just hope everybody else gets similar information so they don't get caught off guard.

Madison320
05-09-2016, 02:55 PM
You are right. I DO want accurate information which is exactly WHY I'm discarding everything that comes out of the mouth of theses clowns who live and die by government grants. These are the same clowns who told me in the 60's and 70's how we were heading into an ice age due to our nasty habits and how we were going to be all out of fuel by the 1990's. I lived through those days (maybe you are a bit younger) but I don't take kindly to people making crap up out of whole cloth that wind up costing me money and time. Those "predictions" did not come true and neither will the current crop.



I remember being told in high school in the 70s that the Amazon rain forest was disappearing at a rate of X square miles per minute and would be gone by the year 2000. I remember thinking "Won't it grow back? Am I missing something?"

Brian4Liberty
05-09-2016, 03:05 PM
California Joins the Effort to Persecute, Suppress Scientific Dissent on Climate Change
By Hans von Spakovsky - January 21, 2016


California Attorney General Kamala Harris has joined New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman in trying to prosecute ExxonMobil for supposedly lying to its shareholders and the public about climate change, according to the Los Angeles Times. The Times reported that Harris is investigating what ExxonMobil “knew about global warming and what the company told investors.”

Neither Harris nor Schneiderman recognizes the outrageousness of what they are doing—which amounts censoring or restricting speech and debate on what is a contentious scientific theory. In fact, they want not just to stop anyone who questions the global warming theory from being able to speak; they want to punish them with possible civil sanctions or even criminal penalties. As I said before about Schneiderman, Harris needs a remedial lesson in the First Amendment.

Perhaps we should investigate what Harris “knows” about global warming or climate change, which Harris (and Schneiderman) treats as if it is a proven, unassailable, incontrovertible fact. However, as the Heritage Foundation’s Nicolas Loris has pointed out, “flaws discovered in the scientific assessment of climate change have shown that the scientific consensus is not as settled as the public had been led to believe.”

According to Loris, leaked emails and documents from various universities and researchers have “revealed conspiracy, exaggerated warming data, possibly illegal destruction and manipulation of data, and attempts to freeze out dissenting scientists from publishing their work in reputable journals.” Furthermore, the “gaffes” that have been exposed in the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports “have only increased skepticism” about the credibility of this scientific theory.

These investigations are reminiscent of the old Soviet Union, where Joseph Stalin persecuted those who he thought had the “wrong” scientific views on everything from linguistics to physics. Besides sending them a copy of the Constitution so they can review the First Amendment, residents of both New York and California might also want to include a copy of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s book, “In the First Circle,” in which he outlined the Soviet government’s suppression of dissenting scientists and engineers.
...
The bottom line is that the state attorneys general of New York and California are not acting like level-headed, objective prosecutors interested in the fair and dispassionate administration of justice. They are instead acting like Grand Inquisitors who must stamp out any heresy that doubts the legitimacy of the climate change religion. They are treating an unproven scientific theory as if it is a creed than cannot be questioned, probed, examined, or doubted.
...
More: http://dailysignal.com/2016/01/21/california-joins-the-effort-to-persecute-suppress-scientific-dissent-on-climate-change/

Nitpicking: Man-made climate change is a hypothesis, not a theory.

PRB
05-11-2016, 04:11 AM
California Joins the Effort to Persecute, Suppress Scientific Dissent on Climate Change
By Hans von Spakovsky - January 21, 2016



Nitpicking: Man-made climate change is a hypothesis, not a theory.

Call it a guess pulled out somebody's ass for all I care.

Whose theory has been the best at predicting weather patterns so far? From hurricanes to droughts to snows?

I don't care what they believe the causes are, I care who's got the best track record (not who doesn't).

PRB
05-11-2016, 04:12 AM
I remember being told in high school in the 70s that the Amazon rain forest was disappearing at a rate of X square miles per minute and would be gone by the year 2000. I remember thinking "Won't it grow back? Am I missing something?"

Won't Jews just repopulate? Repopulation doesn't always catch on to destruction.

luctor-et-emergo
05-11-2016, 06:50 AM
I remember being told in high school in the 70s that the Amazon rain forest was disappearing at a rate of X square miles per minute and would be gone by the year 2000. I remember thinking "Won't it grow back? Am I missing something?"

You are missing something.

Rain Forests are actually quite infertile places. The only reason stuff grows well there is because other stuff rots really fast. The soil itself generally has very little nutrients in it. If you take away all organic matter, in the form of the natural vegetation.. Soon you'll be left with an infertile soil. Forests don't really grow on that. The thing is, you need a rainforest to grow a rainforest. Sure you can start with a pile of sand but it's going to take a very, very long time.

Also, some trees in rain forests, are hundreds or thousands years old.. It obviously takes a long time for such trees to grow back. If you don't think such trees are important to what we know as a rainforest, you should read something about ecology.

It kind of goes against what people think but I'm sorry to inform you that it's true.

Madison320
05-11-2016, 09:35 AM
You are missing something.

Rain Forests are actually quite infertile places. The only reason stuff grows well there is because other stuff rots really fast. The soil itself generally has very little nutrients in it. If you take away all organic matter, in the form of the natural vegetation.. Soon you'll be left with an infertile soil. Forests don't really grow on that. The thing is, you need a rainforest to grow a rainforest. Sure you can start with a pile of sand but it's going to take a very, very long time.

Also, some trees in rain forests, are hundreds or thousands years old.. It obviously takes a long time for such trees to grow back. If you don't think such trees are important to what we know as a rainforest, you should read something about ecology.

It kind of goes against what people think but I'm sorry to inform you that it's true.

If rainforests don't grow back why are they still here? The Amazon rainforest still looks pretty thick to me.

luctor-et-emergo
05-11-2016, 09:47 AM
If rainforests don't grow back why are they still here? The Amazon rainforest still looks pretty thick to me.

They do but not in the time period you were talking about. Fact is, more and more acres of rainforest are being used for agriculture. So yeah, they do grow back, just don't expect it to happen in your lifetime.

osan
05-11-2016, 11:22 AM
Call it a guess pulled out somebody's ass for all I care.

Whose theory has been the best at predicting weather patterns so far? From hurricanes to droughts to snows?

Dunno. Whose? NCAR? HA HA HA... that would be funny. I have an old friend - a no-shit real-deal genius who works there. He is an ex-Crayon and author of Cray's entire math library. He is a flaming liberal, but I forgive him that because he is also a pretty decent martial artist. He will tell you upfront just how flawed the climate models HE has to maintain for the eggheads actually are. I may not trust his politics, but I implicitly trust his opinions on such matters because he knows what he is talking about more than 99.99999% of all the human beings walking the planet. I don't ever use "genius" casually or ignorantly, and the term applies here with great perfection.


I don't care what they believe the causes are, I care who's got the best track record (not who doesn't).

Then I repeat my question, this time to you personally: explain the unchanged overall thermodynamic state of the planet. Take as much time as you please. NASA themselves admit that the planet remains unchanged in this respect. Were it heating, and given that the earth is NOT an adiabatic system, you would see overall increased heat radiance. That is NOT being observed by satellites whose purpose is to measure such things.

Please explain, then, your support for the notion that the earth is warming? Or is it your contention that NASA is lying?

ChristianAnarchist
05-11-2016, 05:22 PM
Call it a guess pulled out somebody's ass for all I care.

Whose theory has been the best at predicting weather patterns so far? From hurricanes to droughts to snows?

I don't care what they believe the causes are, I care who's got the best track record (not who doesn't).

You've got to be kidding, right?? Have you any idea of what is a historical "norm"? Hurricanes have been much lower than historical norms for years now. Droughts? Ever hear of the dust-bowl 1920's? Snow?? I can tell you personally about the snow in the 60's and it was WAY worse than any of these so-called "emergency" snow days called by modern day wimps. I'm so sick of seeing these newscasters standing out in a minor snowfall with an inch of snow on the ground behind them telling me what a disaster it is!!! What a joke. You need to get your head out of the sand...

PRB
05-11-2016, 09:11 PM
They do but not in the time period you were talking about. Fact is, more and more acres of rainforest are being used for agriculture. So yeah, they do grow back, just don't expect it to happen in your lifetime.

just like EVENTUALLY there will be martial law and hyperinflation, don't know when ,but we know it WILL.

PRB
05-11-2016, 09:12 PM
You've got to be kidding, right?? Have you any idea of what is a historical "norm"?

If it was the norm, nobody would be caught off guard.

PRB
05-11-2016, 09:18 PM
Also, some trees in rain forests, are hundreds or thousands years old.. It obviously takes a long time for such trees to grow back. If you don't think such trees are important to what we know as a rainforest, you should read something about ecology.

It kind of goes against what people think but I'm sorry to inform you that it's true.

No thanks, keep your eco Fascism to yourself.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
05-12-2016, 12:35 PM
The temperature on my porch is different than the temperature in my driveway. You can't possibly measure temperature accurately since the 1800s using shifting weather stations. The weather stations also have effects of building structures around them. A model that measures temperature with 1.8 degrees over multiple decades is highly unlikely.

The so-called "97%" figure of people who agree with "global warming" probably never worked directly on it, and probably know every little about it. I've also seen these reports from NASA and official bodies that talk about margins of error, so that 1.8 degree mark is not in stone. They also look at weather logs from decades ago that are weathered or can't even be deciphered. They fill in the gaps by rounding off numbers and even guessing by extrapolation. Their 1.8 figure is bunk.

PRB
05-12-2016, 03:43 PM
The temperature on my porch is different than the temperature in my driveway. You can't possibly measure temperature accurately since the 1800s using shifting weather stations. The weather stations also have effects of building structures around them. A model that measures temperature with 1.8 degrees over multiple decades is highly unlikely.

The so-called "97%" figure of people who agree with "global warming" probably never worked directly on it, and probably know every little about it. I've also seen these reports from NASA and official bodies that talk about margins of error, so that 1.8 degree mark is not in stone. They also look at weather logs from decades ago that are weathered or can't even be deciphered. They fill in the gaps by rounding off numbers and even guessing by extrapolation. Their 1.8 figure is bunk.
so what number isn't bunk? 0.8? 2.3?

ChristianAnarchist
05-12-2016, 07:00 PM
so what number isn't bunk? 0.8? 2.3?

You want to know what the temperature is?? Go outside. I've got 64 years on this planet and I can tell you that there's been ZERO significant change in temperature during that time. Don't believe me?? Ask anyone else who's lived that long if things are hotter or colder than years ago...

Climate hysteria. That's what you're witnessing. Has nothing to do with "Science"...

P.S. I'm currently in China where the pollution is so bad you can't see one mile on a bad day. Flying over China at 30k feet you can see the top of the smog like a brown blanket somewhere around 20k feet. This entire country is covered with smog and you know what? It's no warmer here than when my wife's mother was growing up. Lot more comfortable though because now everyone has A/C...

PRB
05-12-2016, 08:41 PM
You want to know what the temperature is?? Go outside. I've got 64 years on this planet and I can tell you that there's been ZERO significant change in temperature during that time. Don't believe me?? Ask anyone else who's lived that long if things are hotter or colder than years ago...


Because
1. You lived at every part of the planet
2. You think hot/cold is the only thing that matters
3. Your memory is reliable
4. Oh, so you DON'T trust anybody's predictions or measurement but your own, got it
5. By the way, who's best at predicting droughts, hurricanes, floods, storms, blizzards?



Climate hysteria. That's what you're witnessing. Has nothing to do with "Science"...

P.S. I'm currently in China where the pollution is so bad you can't see one mile on a bad day. Flying over China at 30k feet you can see the top of the smog like a brown blanket somewhere around 20k feet. This entire country is covered with smog and you know what? It's no warmer here than when my wife's mother was growing up. Lot more comfortable though because now everyone has A/C...

Again, you seem to think "warming" is the defining characteristic of global warming. What city are you in? Shanghai? Shenzun? Beijing? Dalian?

pcosmar
05-12-2016, 11:35 PM
Because


Now you are playing mixed signals,,,, and trying to confuse.

Why not just admit failure?

Or even admit that you learned something here,, that at least is not failure.

Global Warming/Climate Change is a hoax,, made to distract those that are concerned.
but it is a lie..
well played,, but a lie..

be a sucker,,or tell your masters to eat shit,,

your choice as always.

ChristianAnarchist
05-13-2016, 12:17 AM
Because
1. You lived at every part of the planet
2. You think hot/cold is the only thing that matters
3. Your memory is reliable
4. Oh, so you DON'T trust anybody's predictions or measurement but your own, got it
5. By the way, who's best at predicting droughts, hurricanes, floods, storms, blizzards?



Again, you seem to think "warming" is the defining characteristic of global warming. What city are you in? Shanghai? Shenzun? Beijing? Dalian?

Again, you don't seem to understand... I'll take my personal observations over the claims of some politically funded "study" that has a pre-conceived agenda to support... But hey, that's just me...

P.S. From Yahoo Answers: Hottest and Coldest recorded temps...
Best Answer: On July 21, 1983, the lowest temperature ever recorded on earth was in Russian Vostok Base, Australian Antarctic Territory with −89.2 °C (−128.56 °F).

On September 13, 1922 a temperature of 57.7°C (135.9°F) was recorded in the city of Al 'Aziziyah, Libya the hottest recorded temperature ever on the surface of the Earth

PRB
05-13-2016, 12:49 AM
Now you are playing mixed signals,,,, and trying to confuse.

Why not just admit failure?

Or even admit that you learned something here,, that at least is not failure.

Global Warming/Climate Change is a hoax,, made to distract those that are concerned.
but it is a lie..
well played,, but a lie..

be a sucker,,or tell your masters to eat $#@!,,

your choice as always.

it's a hoax because you're the one dumb enough to believe that if it's true, it justifies taxes and regulations. I'm opposed to regulations regardless of whether it's true, so I'm not afraid of it being true. This is why the oil lobby spends millions trying to deny it, because they, like liberals, can't think of a better response IF it was true.

Holocaust deniers, 9/11 truthers, creationists and conspiracy theorists all have that in common, IF ONLY the common belief were true, they'd be damned.

PRB
05-13-2016, 12:51 AM
Again, you don't seem to understand... I'll take my personal observations over the claims of some politically funded "study" that has a pre-conceived agenda to support...

So there's no such thing as a non-politically funded study? ALL weather and climate studies are fake and unreliable?

Are 4 seasons "politically funded" or scientifically accurate? Did Sandy and Katrina actually happen? Or are they conspiracies & cover ups?

Was there really a medieval warming period and little ice age? Or were they made up by "politically motivated" scientists?

ChristianAnarchist
05-13-2016, 01:54 AM
So there's no such thing as a non-politically funded study? ALL weather and climate studies are fake and unreliable?


No, there isn't. If it's "taxpayer funded" it's got an agenda... I suppose if someone was using their own money (like Ben Franklin) there would be less of an agenda but I'm sure even ol' Ben had a certain target he was trying to hit. I don't even believe it's wrong to have an agenda but you should at least be aware of it. Anytime you rely on someone's "work" you have to realize they have something to "sell" even if it's only their reputation.



Are 4 seasons "politically funded" or scientifically accurate? Did Sandy and Katrina actually happen? Or are they conspiracies & cover ups?


What kind of crazy point are you trying to make??



Was there really a medieval warming period and little ice age? Or were they made up by "politically motivated" scientists?

Yes, I believe there was (but I wasn't there) and I'm certain it was caused by mankind burning wood for fuel and chopping down .0000000000001 % of the forest land...

libertyjam
05-13-2016, 04:58 PM
S Did Sandy and Katrina actually happen?

What is with this constant mention of Sandy and Katrina, as if they were some special case hurricanes that have never happened? What complete ignorance is this?

Never heard of Camille -1969?
Galveston 1900? responsible for the 8,000 deaths (estimates range from 6,000 to 12,000) attributed to the storm.
Andrew - 1992?
Carla - 1961?
Audrey- 1957?
These are all hurricanes that are still remembered today, even if no one is still alive today to that was actually around for the 1900 Galveston Hurricane.

To find more just as powerful see: http://www.hurricanescience.org/history/storms/


Was there really a medieval warming period and little ice age? Or were they made up by "politically motivated" scientists?

they actually occurred, but some IPCC members actually tried to write them out of history as if they had never occurred.

PRB
05-13-2016, 07:23 PM
What is with this constant mention of Sandy and Katrina, as if they were some special case hurricanes that have never happened? What complete ignorance is this?

Never heard of Camille -1969?
Galveston 1900? responsible for the 8,000 deaths (estimates range from 6,000 to 12,000) attributed to the storm.
Andrew - 1992?
Carla - 1961?
Audrey- 1957?
These are all hurricanes that are still remembered today, even if no one is still alive today to that was actually around for the 1900 Galveston Hurricane.

To find more just as powerful see: http://www.hurricanescience.org/history/storms/


Why are there Sandy and Katrina victims if hurricanes are the norm? are these people dumb and deserve to suffer? or was their lack of preparation justified as they had no reasonable believe it would happen (since the best examples you can give are 20 years old or in different locations)



Was there really a medieval warming period and little ice age? Or were they made up by "politically motivated" scientists?

they actually occurred, but some IPCC members actually tried to write them out of history as if they had never occurred.

How do you know? Why aren't the people who say it happened "politically motivated"? Who funded THEIR study?

PRB
05-13-2016, 07:25 PM
No, there isn't. If it's "taxpayer funded" it's got an agenda... I suppose if someone was using their own money (like Ben Franklin) there would be less of an agenda but I'm sure even ol' Ben had a certain target he was trying to hit. I don't even believe it's wrong to have an agenda but you should at least be aware of it. Anytime you rely on someone's "work" you have to realize they have something to "sell" even if it's only their reputation.


So whose agenda was it to leave Sandy and Katrina victims unwarned of disasters? Who saw it coming and was censored? Who thinks they totally deserved their suffering because hurricanes are totally normal?



What kind of crazy point are you trying to make??

Yes, I believe there was (but I wasn't there) and I'm certain it was caused by mankind burning wood for fuel and chopping down .0000000000001 % of the forest land...

No point in talking about 'cause' unless you first acknowledge it happened.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
05-13-2016, 07:27 PM
so what number isn't bunk? 0.8? 2.3?


What's the margin of error on the 1.8 degree temperature increase since the 1800s?

ChristianAnarchist
05-13-2016, 10:44 PM
So whose agenda was it to leave Sandy and Katrina victims unwarned of disasters? Who saw it coming and was censored? Who thinks they totally deserved their suffering because hurricanes are totally normal?

No point in talking about 'cause' unless you first acknowledge it happened.

What is it with you about Sandy and Katrina?? You think I was somehow personally responsible or that I should have done something to prevent it?? I know I'm good kid, but I'm not THAT good...

PRB
05-14-2016, 08:55 AM
What is it with you about Sandy and Katrina?? You think I was somehow personally responsible or that I should have done something to prevent it?? I know I'm good kid, but I'm not THAT good...

I think people who are victims could only be a few kinds
-ignorant, willingly ignorant, thus deserving
-deprived of the opportunity to be warned, thus victims
-unable by any way to be warned, thus victims

Which one is it?

Denying that global warming is happening and extreme weather patterns will continue, will not help prepare for the next disaster. Arguing over what is causing climate change don't dismiss the facts.

I'm all with you on opposing any and all regulations, I'm not opposed to knowledge though.

PRB
05-14-2016, 08:56 AM
What's the margin of error on the 1.8 degree temperature increase since the 1800s?

Unless you want to live an 1800 lifestyle, comparing today to then is irrelevant and useless.

You wouldn't want to lose 5% of your income today, so why would you want to give up any of your electronics or go even a day without electricity?

ChristianAnarchist
05-14-2016, 10:28 AM
I think people who are victims could only be a few kinds
-ignorant, willingly ignorant, thus deserving
-deprived of the opportunity to be warned, thus victims
-unable by any way to be warned, thus victims

Which one is it?

Denying that global warming is happening and extreme weather patterns will continue, will not help prepare for the next disaster. Arguing over what is causing climate change don't dismiss the facts.

I'm all with you on opposing any and all regulations, I'm not opposed to knowledge though.

Climate change cannot be denied as the "climate" is always "changing". No one here has ever said otherwise. Indeed this is exactly the point when we bring up historical example of extreme weather (which have happened long before our so-called "influence). If anyone is dismissing the facts, it is you...

Anti Federalist
05-14-2016, 11:46 AM
Forget whether it's man made, can we agree first that it's happening?

If you knew a hurricane, flood or drought was coming, do you argue whether it's caused by man or first acknowledge it's happening so you can prepare?

How is turning the nation over to foreign regulatory bodies and paying higher taxes in any way "preparing" for anything?

Anti Federalist
05-14-2016, 11:48 AM
So whose agenda was it to leave Sandy and Katrina victims unwarned of disasters? Who saw it coming and was censored? Who thinks they totally deserved their suffering because hurricanes are totally normal?

Nonsense, there were warnings for days ahead of Katrina.

And for years, warnings about the levee system failing when a large hurricane eventually hit.

Anti Federalist
05-14-2016, 11:51 AM
I've been threatened on other sites for talking about global warming, they have said I should be put in jail or in a camp.

That is the endgame of all this Malthusian nonsense:

Way too many of you...not enough of me.

So, let's just cull those numbers of you, mmm'kay.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
05-14-2016, 01:05 PM
Unless you want to live an 1800 lifestyle, comparing today to then is irrelevant and useless.

You wouldn't want to lose 5% of your income today, so why would you want to give up any of your electronics or go even a day without electricity?

That's not what I asked. Don't you global warmists say the temperature has increased 1.8 degrees since the 1800s? If so, then what is the margin of error on that 1.8 degree figure?

And if it's irrelevant and useless to do such a thing, then why are you discussing preparation? Why is the research being done?

Ronin Truth
05-14-2016, 01:55 PM
Let the loony lefties chew on this for awhile.




Terrestrial Atmosphere

Surface pressure: 1014 mb
Surface density: 1.217 kg/m3
Scale height: 8.5 km
Total mass of atmosphere: 5.1 x 1018 kg
Total mass of hydrosphere: 1.4 x 1021 kg
Average temperature: 288 K (15 C)
Diurnal temperature range: 283 K to 293 K (10 to 20 C)
Wind speeds: 0 to 100 m/s
Mean molecular weight: 28.97 g/mole

Atmospheric composition (by volume, dry air):

Major : 78.084% Nitrogen (N2), 20.946% Oxygen (O2),

Minor (ppm): Argon (Ar) - 9340; Carbon Dioxide (CO2) - 400
Neon (Ne) - 18.18; Helium (He) - 5.24; CH4 - 1.7
Krypton (Kr) - 1.14; Hydrogen (H2) - 0.55
Water is highly variable, typically makes up about 1%

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/earthfact.html

PRB
05-14-2016, 07:45 PM
How is turning the nation over to foreign regulatory bodies and paying higher taxes in any way "preparing" for anything?

Who said I'm for any regulation or taxation?

Preparing for as disaster has zero to do with taxation, if you listen to Alex Jones you'd know all the stuff you can by for survival and extreme weathers.

PRB
05-14-2016, 07:47 PM
That's not what I asked. Don't you global warmists say the temperature has increased 1.8 degrees since the 1800s? If so, then what is the margin of error on that 1.8 degree figure?

And if it's irrelevant and useless to do such a thing, then why are you discussing preparation? Why is the research being done?

I'm discussing preparation because I don't want to be another Sandy or Katrina victim. Why is research being done, that's another story.

PRB
05-14-2016, 07:48 PM
Nonsense, there were warnings for days ahead of Katrina.

And for years, warnings about the levee system failing when a large hurricane eventually hit.

In other words, they all deserved it, because they had all the time they needed to prepare, got it. Just making sure you had an answer.

PRB
05-14-2016, 07:54 PM
Let the loony lefties chew on this for awhile.

What's your point? That CO2 is a minor component of our atmosphere?

timosman
05-14-2016, 08:10 PM
What's your point? That CO2 is a minor component of our atmosphere?

We should start paying more attention to argon. :eek:

PRB
05-14-2016, 08:23 PM
We should start paying more attention to argon. :eek:

If by pay attention you mean regulation, no thanks.

I'm against ALL REGULATIONS.

libertyjam
05-15-2016, 08:37 AM
Why are there Sandy and Katrina victims if hurricanes are the norm? are these people dumb and deserve to suffer? or was their lack of preparation justified as they had no reasonable believe it would happen (since the best examples you can give are 20 years old or in different locations)


Ok so now you just want to shift goalposts and talk about government incompetence?

You had to be a real special kind of stupid not to have known New Orleans was ground zero for Katrina, or to believe a hurricane cannot make landfall anywhere on the gulf coast or eastern seaboard. Or to think that there was no warning given or evacuation announced. Was mayor Ray-Ray a little slow on the uptake? Sure he was, take it up with him.

Ronin Truth
05-15-2016, 11:50 AM
What's your point? That CO2 is a minor component of our atmosphere?

One of my major points is, water vapor is the strongest greenhouse gas, at ~1% of atmospheric composition. That's about 10,000 parts per million, compared to CO2 @ 400 ppm.

How do the ecoloonies propose to suppress and tax water in order to take human control of the planet's climate, and fine tune it? :rolleyes:

PRB
05-15-2016, 12:34 PM
Ok so now you just want to shift goalposts and talk about government incompetence?


Nope.



You had to be a real special kind of stupid not to have known New Orleans was ground zero for Katrina, or to believe a hurricane cannot make landfall anywhere on the gulf coast or eastern seaboard.


According to which non-politically funded scientist?



Or to think that there was no warning given or evacuation announced. Was mayor Ray-Ray a little slow on the uptake? Sure he was, take it up with him.
So, the only victims are dumb, ignorant or victims of government incompetence?

PRB
05-15-2016, 12:35 PM
One of my major points is, water vapor is the strongest greenhouse gas, at ~1% of atmospheric composition.


Says who and why do you believe them, I mean, if we're going to deny all scientific studies as "politically funded" why cherry pick what you want to believe?




That's about 10,000 parts per million, compared to CO2 @ 400 ppm.


Is it ever increasing?



How do the ecoloonies propose to suppress and tax water in order to take human control of the planet's climate, and fine tune it? :rolleyes:

I'm not for any tax, so don't ask me.

Ronin Truth
05-16-2016, 08:17 AM
Says who and why do you believe them, I mean, if we're going to deny all scientific studies as "politically funded" why cherry pick what you want to believe?

I doubt NASA has a dog in the 'political' climate change fight.

I'm not denying the studies without an ecoloony agenda for world government.

Is it ever increasing?

Probably just about as often as decreasing. AKA fluctuating.

I'm not for any tax, so don't ask me.

what is the most powerful greenhouse gas?

About 645,000 results

https://www.google.com/search?q=what+is+the+most+powerful+greenhouse+gas% 3F&hl=en&gbv=2&oq=what+is+the+most+powerful+greenhouse+gas%3F&gs_l=heirloom-serp.12..0i22i30l10.75953.75953.0.84360.1.1.0.0.0. 0.188.188.0j1.1.0....0...1ac.1.34.heirloom-serp..0.1.188.MP1vf_bU60k

Why is there 'climate change'(so called) on other planets in the solar system ongoing?

Humans fault too?

PRB
05-16-2016, 07:50 PM
what is the most powerful greenhouse gas?

About 645,000 results

https://www.google.com/search?q=what+is+the+most+powerful+greenhouse+gas% 3F&hl=en&gbv=2&oq=what+is+the+most+powerful+greenhouse+gas%3F&gs_l=heirloom-serp.12..0i22i30l10.75953.75953.0.84360.1.1.0.0.0. 0.188.188.0j1.1.0....0...1ac.1.34.heirloom-serp..0.1.188.MP1vf_bU60k

Why is there 'climate change'(so called) on other planets in the solar system ongoing?

Humans fault too?

NASA is the gubmint also, "you doubt" they have a dog? So you just arbitarily decide who you think has a dog in the fight?

"I'm not denying the studies without an ecoloony agenda for world government."How do you know if one does?

"About 645,000 results"
If you trusted Google, we wouldn't be having this discussion, now I know, you are completely arbitrary in decide when to trust Google, when to trust scientists ,when to trust GOVERNMENT FUNDED scientists.

"Why is there 'climate change'(so called) on other planets in the solar system ongoing?"

Which planets? Mars?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars.htm
Jupiter?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-jupiter.htm
Anyway, the Sun is cooling, in case you wanted to say it was warming.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

Ronin Truth
05-17-2016, 06:58 AM
NASA is the gubmint also, "you doubt" they have a dog? So you just arbitarily decide who you think has a dog in the fight?

"I'm not denying the studies without an ecoloony agenda for world government."How do you know if one does?

"About 645,000 results"
If you trusted Google, we wouldn't be having this discussion, now I know, you are completely arbitrary in decide when to trust Google, when to trust scientists ,when to trust GOVERNMENT FUNDED scientists.

"Why is there 'climate change'(so called) on other planets in the solar system ongoing?"

Which planets? Mars?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars.htm
Jupiter?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-jupiter.htm
Anyway, the Sun is cooling, in case you wanted to say it was warming.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm


I can decide whatever I damned well please, for whatever reasons. Al Gore AND the UN, nothing else is really necessary, it's just BS. DUH!

NorthCarolinaLiberty
05-22-2016, 10:23 PM
I'm discussing preparation because I don't want to be another Sandy or Katrina victim. Why is research being done, that's another story.

That's not what I asked. I asked the margin of error on the claimed 1.8 degree temperature rise over decades.

PRB
05-26-2016, 01:23 AM
I can decide whatever I damned well please, for whatever reasons. Al Gore AND the UN, nothing else is really necessary, it's just BS. DUH!

And I decide you're a child molester.

FindLiberty
05-26-2016, 06:10 AM
IMO, MANKIND HAS NO SIGNIFICANT CONTROL OVER CLIMATE CHANGE - it's the sun...

http://www.nature.com/news/cloud-seeding-surprise-could-improve-climate-predictions-1.19971

...it may have been cloudier in pre-industrial times than previously thought.
If this is so, then the masking effect, and in turn the warming effects of
carbon dioxide, might have been overestimated...
Trump must have them so upset now that they can't even breathe! Tyrannical competition? GOOD!

Government (politicians, advisers and goons) want to take away every last bit of Liberty, 'cause it's in their very nature to do so.
What's coming next from these Maroons, declare a war on trees or tax every blade of grass?
Maybe THEY SHOULD JUST QUIT TRYING TO RULE THE WORLD - "Mars to stay" seem like a reasonable option for them.



RUSH LYRICS "The Trees"

For they passed a noble law
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe and saw

Music: youtube;JnC88xBPkkc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnC88xBPkkc

PRB
05-27-2016, 08:14 PM
IMO, MANKIND HAS NO SIGNIFICANT CONTROL OVER CLIMATE CHANGE - it's the sun...

http://www.nature.com/news/cloud-seeding-surprise-could-improve-climate-predictions-1.19971

Trump must have them so upset now that they can't even breathe! Tyrannical competition? GOOD!

Government (politicians, advisers and goons) want to take away every last bit of Liberty, 'cause it's in their very nature to do so.
What's coming next from these Maroons, declare a war on trees or tax every blade of grass?
Maybe THEY SHOULD JUST QUIT TRYING TO RULE THE WORLD - "Mars to stay" seem like a reasonable option for them.


Music: youtube;JnC88xBPkkc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnC88xBPkkc

Again, if "it's the sun" how are people who use the sun predicting climate? Are they better at it than warmers who say it's CO2?

FindLiberty
05-27-2016, 09:28 PM
IDK, I have not looked at this again, and it may be a lie that has convinced me, but I thought...

Ice cores show several past ice ages. This is evaluated by the trapped gas bubbles in the ice (including CO2).

http://http://euanmearns.com/the-vostok-ice-core-temperature-co2-and-ch4/

Thousands of years long, cycle is not new, no possible correlation to modern industrial age. No way humans can start or stop it!
WTF is the plan, tweak this natural (several thousand year long) cycle by maybe a hundred years +/- by adding some new tax?

Tyrannical alarmist nonsense - I call BS on it and it must be ignored, completely IMO.

PRB
05-28-2016, 04:48 PM
IDK, I have not looked at this again, and it may be a lie that has convinced me, but I thought...

Ice cores show several past ice ages. This is evaluated by the trapped gas bubbles in the ice (including CO2).

http://http://euanmearns.com/the-vostok-ice-core-temperature-co2-and-ch4/

Thousands of years long, cycle is not new, no possible correlation to modern industrial age. No way humans can start or stop it!
WTF is the plan, tweak this natural (several thousand year long) cycle by maybe a hundred years +/- by adding some new tax?

Tyrannical alarmist nonsense - I call BS on it and it must be ignored, completely IMO.

"Thousands of years" is not relevant unless you wish to live like how people did thousands of years ago. But I know you don't, because you're not even willing to be taxed a few percent of your current income, asking you to live like how people did before electricity is quite out of the question. Nobody is saying humans will go extinct, nor do most care that trees or animals will die, in fact, very few humans will die as a result of climate, but you don't need to die to suffer unnecessary inconveniences.

Sandy and Katrina (and more recently, Detroit, Houston, Arizona) flood victims didn't die, they just lost their homes, wasted thousands of dollars to move, lose some possessions and were unable to work and earn while caught in a disaster, don't worry, they're alive.

I've said a million times on this forum : I AM AGAINST ANY NEW TAXATION & REGULATION. I only accept climate change knowledge from scientists who can predict floods, droughts, hurricanes, blizzards, sea level rises, so people can prepare. Just because a new tax won't prevent earthquakes, doesn't mean you'd ignore warnings of them when moving into an earthquake prone area.

ChristianAnarchist
05-28-2016, 06:01 PM
what is the most powerful greenhouse gas?

About 645,000 results

https://www.google.com/search?q=what+is+the+most+powerful+greenhouse+gas% 3F&hl=en&gbv=2&oq=what+is+the+most+powerful+greenhouse+gas%3F&gs_l=heirloom-serp.12..0i22i30l10.75953.75953.0.84360.1.1.0.0.0. 0.188.188.0j1.1.0....0...1ac.1.34.heirloom-serp..0.1.188.MP1vf_bU60k

Why is there 'climate change'(so called) on other planets in the solar system ongoing?

Humans fault too?


Of course it's our fault!!! What kind of thinking would believe otherwise??

PRB
05-28-2016, 06:20 PM
Of course it's our fault!!! What kind of thinking would believe otherwise??

Scientific thinking with evidence might believe otherwise. Keyword : might.