New Study Is A ‘Death Blow’ To Global Warming Hysteria
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
The problem is not disbelief in established fact......the problem is the so-called "experts" have completely disemboweled anything that could faintly be called "trust" in their conclusions by behaving in a most unscientific and hypocritical manner.
I have not spent my life studying climate change.
I have spent a large part of my life studying human nature, and hypocrites, sexual predators, liars, those that try to intimidate with lawsuits, those that try to suppress dissent by dishonest methods, are simply not to be trusted on anything.
So I do not believe them on GW.
Maybe if the IPCC head was not a sexual predator who considers GW his "religion".
Maybe if the East Anglia bunch had not tried to suppress dissent.
Maybe if the conferences were not held in specially built resorts in Peru, and then in Paris....
Maybe if the "concerned" didn't fly into Swiss airspace in their private jets by the dozen to talk GW at the economic conference..
Maybe if the GW guru, Al gore, didn't have the carbon footprint of a small; town, and sell his TV station to QATAR for $100 million.
Maybe if the UN spokesperson didn't sail around on the fifth largest yacht in the world (borrowed from an oil sheik) and fly in 30 beautiful women to keep in company.
Maybe if Michael Mann was not suing everyone possible, then withdrawing the suits the second his research might be brought up in court.
How stupid do you have to be to believe these people?
If they shake your hand, you'd best check for your watch and wallet after.
Yeah right. Seems to me GW is probably the greatest con in human history. Especially when I look out the window at 4 feet of snow on the ground....on April 10.
Your lesson is an absolute failure, as you missed the point.
Not bad generally, but what on earth do the IPCC head's sexual proclivities and Al Gore's business dealings have to do with global warming?
Colpy said:
It's more like desperatly try to find commonality and community after blowing off Religion and it's so called constricting rules and dogma.
Carbon is the new Satan and being green the path to peace on earth and an eternal place in the happy energy created.
Close, but I find that most lefty shriekers are basically human hating. Carbon's just the latest boogey man. Before that it was pollution, deforestation, what have you. The whole attack on Mother Gaia.
Apparently a dam made by beavers to improve their lives is natural, and a dam made by humans to improve their lives is unnatural.
Oddly, they're buying into the whole "special status of humans" dogma that they claim to hate when the churches do it.
Beaver ponds are bad for the environment. It's the methane.
You can tithe your way into green heaven too. Uncanny.
You can tithe your way into green heaven too. Uncanny.
Yeah, once you strip off the plastic (or hemp) and get down to the model, the Church of Mother Nature ain't no different from the Church of the Beardy Old Guy In a Nightshirt Sitting On a Cloud Smiting Folk.
Both have perfect, good, kind, divine being that loves us and kills folk regularly. Both assume humans are EEE-vil and need to be redeemed. Both promise lollipops and ice cream forever if you follow them, and miserable torture and DOOOOOOM if you don't.
How utterly pathetic.
without regard to the accuracy of any of your points, your post has nothing whatsoever to do with the science... it's simply a way for you to couch your denial. Deniers gonna deny!
Already addressed the science. It amounts to saying atmospheric carbon is the only factor in global temperatures. Which is demonstrably ridiculous. But when all you got is a hammer, every problem needs a nail.
what you ignored is the delineation I pointedly made between a small number of persons/scientists making predictions versus predictions/positions made and held by formalized scientific bodies/institutions.
it is certainly your denier prerogative to ignore the prevailing scientific position and consensus as regards your stated "small snap shot" period of time. It is also your denier prerogative to be unable to present your case/position for a natural principal causal tie to the relatively recent warming.
no knowledgeable persons are stating atmospheric carbon is the ONLY factor. Your statement is, as you say, demonstrably ridiculous.
So get back to us when they identify and quantify the other factors. That's science.
already provided (several times over in past CC related threads); again, most recent per IPCC AR5
you offered up a statement a short while back stating you had arrived at an understanding that didn't allow you to accept GW/AGW... you didn't elaborate. Care to?
you keep nattering on about the Medieval Warming Period (MWP):
- notwithstanding warming of today's relatively recent period is warmer than the MWP
- notwithstanding there is no scientific acceptance that the MWP was global... that it was anything more than a regional localized event
- don't hesitate to provide your support and substantiation to draw an equivalency between the causes of warming attributed to the MWP period and the warming of today's relatively recent period.
the taxi narrative... to a T: squawk *** globull *** squawk *** globull *** squawk
several of you deniers here are (once again) on this "world wealth distribution" talking point. Now... there is the UN based/related Green Climate Fund intended to help developing countries deal with (principally) adaptation requirements... but the amounts are hardly approaching "world wealth distribution" levels. Care to step beyond the talking point and actually state what facets/components are a part of your talking point?
The two scientific bodies (earth sciences) I have membership in take no stance on AGW but don't deny it's warming and make no claims why it's warming.waldo said:
Well I put it in a video for you. 58 seconds of truth for the deniers from the inimitable John Cleese.
already provided (several times over in past CC related threads); again, most recent per IPCC AR5
you offered up a statement a short while back stating you had arrived at an understanding that didn't allow you to accept GW/AGW... you didn't elaborate. Care to?
I did, but you obviously missed it. There are many, many factors aside from the ones you list that affect global temperatures. We don't even know what causes ice ages. They're a global temperature variation I'm not willing to blame Ford Motor Company for. The sun is a variable star, we just don't have enough data to fully evaluate its variability. That'll certainly have something to do with global temperatures. One theory of ice ages is that they are caused when the solar system passes through clouds of galactic dust. But it's just a theory. We don't know where all the dust is, or how much it affects insolation. We also don't know at what rate increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will spur plant growth, which will reduce the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The one thing we DO know is that the relationship is notoriously non-linear.
That's just a handful of the factors we don't really have a handle on.
As I said, jury's out.