Not 97% but .3% of Climatologists agree.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by jem, Sep 16, 2013.

  1. No I'm not. But it's good idea. You guys need to be drowned out. Or just plain drowned. The future earth will thank us. You suck and you lie and you know it.
     
    #1021     Nov 25, 2013
  2. gwb-trading

    gwb-trading

    Skeptical Science - Funded by Al Gore's Climate Reality Project and GIM hedge fund[
    http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/09/skeptical-science-partnership-with-al.html

     
    #1022     Nov 25, 2013
  3. gwb-trading

    gwb-trading

    So let's get this straight - you ARE NOT denying that you are part of Skeptical Science's "crusher crew" who sole intent is to "drown out" those who do not accept their alarmist positions.

    Correct? State it in very direct terms so when we fact check it - we will have you on record.
     
    #1023     Nov 25, 2013
  4. Lucrum

    Lucrum

    If that's true. Then what does that say about you, for being utterly incapable of convincing us you're right?
     
    #1024     Nov 25, 2013
  5. Lucrum

    Lucrum

    0.3%
     
    #1025     Nov 25, 2013
  6. These alarmist assholes in general are a bunch of lying criminals. In the case of GW they dress their crimes up with the trappings of science.

    I have a friend that got frontal lobe lesions from Black Mold in a mattress. She is able to find alarmist garbage about Fukushima and cell tower radiation but she is unable to do the due diligence required to sort it all out. I was trying to sort it out for her and found that the web is saturated with alarmist [mis]information that makes it hard to find actual data. Meanwhile she just can't shut up about this shit and drives people nuts so she's a walking talking free advertiser for these jerkoffs that can generate political capital out of thin air with alarmist bullshit stories wrapped in fake science. I found a story about Fukushima that alleged the author had sailed the Pacific from Japan to California and observed whales with giant tumors and an ocean completely devoid of life! Once I had the data in hand it was very easy to conclude that the authors were taking every shred of data and misrepresenting it in a way that would alarm people. So how much happiness are these bastards willing to destroy to play their game? All of it! My friend is unhappy and anxiety ridden because they can play her like a fiddle. She calls me at 5am with hysteria about where is she supposed to move to survive and how can she convince her family to go along.

    Our schools don't teach much critical thinking. If they did, people would be able to separate out information [what somebody makes of data] from data and they would be a lot less inclined towards alarmist bullshit.

    Environmentalists lost me about forty years ago when I read an article that stated that we were losing "hundreds of thousands of species every hour" or something to that effect. Marxists can ride this environmental shit like nobody else. It gives them control over private property and it generates an excuse to give the UN taxation power. They can't stop with the lies.. futurecurrents probably creams his jeans at the thought of the perfect society based on environmentalism...
     
    #1026     Nov 25, 2013
  7. Ricter

    Ricter

    From what I've been reading, the oceans, re their utility to us at least, are in a lot of trouble.
     
    #1027     Nov 25, 2013
  8. gwb-trading

    gwb-trading

    There are threats facing the oceans. These threats include over-fishing and localized pollution.

    Global warming is not a threat to the oceans.
     
    #1028     Nov 25, 2013
  9. jem

    jem

    instead of wasting billions on agw nutters who lie there ass off the billions could have been used on oceans or other resources.

    you might say agw nutters sucking in govt money are eco terrorists.


     
    #1029     Nov 25, 2013
  10. jem

    jem

    this is a repeat from me... but it is the state of science.
    so when fc repeats his crap... I will repeat the truth...

    since co2 is such a small percent of the greenhouse.
    agw nutter / speculators have stated adding co2 causes more clouds. their theory was more clouds means more warming...


    but....


    Science is still investigating what happens when ghcs are added.
    the theory had been / is more co2 produces more clouds.



    http://climatekids.nasa.gov/greenhouse-effect/

    Don't clouds keep Earth cooler?

    Water in the atmosphere also acts as a greenhouse gas. The atmosphere contains a lot of water. This water can be in the form of a gas—water vapor—or in the form of a liquid—clouds. Clouds are water vapor that has cooled and condensed back into tiny droplets of liquid water.

    Clouds as seen from space.
    Earth's clouds as seen from space.

    Water in the clouds holds in some of the heat from Earth's surface. But the bright white tops of clouds also reflect some of the sunlight back to space. So with clouds, some energy from the Sun never even reaches Earth's surface.

    How much the clouds affect the warming or cooling of Earth's surface is one of those tricky questions that several NASA missions are aiming to answer. [/B][/QUOTE]
     
    #1030     Nov 25, 2013