Death knell for AGW
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
The facts here are that every single truther model has failed miserably... Every dire prediction has never been realized.
Add in the various scandals and it's a recipe for a cult
Is a denier someone who doesn't believe the Earth's temperature has not warmed for the past 18 years?
Anywho... I had better run... I have to shovel all the Global Warming from the driveway shortly
truther model? That about says all I need to know about you. What dire predictions, made by who? Scandals... name em.
runaway, runaway!
does your earth include the oceans?
what for? I know all the BS denier talking points... but thanks for playing. Ya'll come back, here!
yup... it appears the CapInHand has definitely left the building!
please substantiate your position that the oceans aren't warming - thanks in advance
Here is my position on global warming:
Yes, the climate is changing. It changes constantly. It has been doing so for 4 billion years.
No it is not a disaster, especially if we do what we do best as a species, ADAPT.
Probably mankind has little or nothing to do with it.
The planet has only warmed very slightly over the past 15 to 18 years.
The GW panic is completely Chicken Little.
The rush to destroy our economies and shift wealth to the third world is suicidal insanity.
If you chose to treat the idiot Al Gore as a prophet, and Leanardo DiCaprio as his high priest, with Naomi Klein, James Cameron, David Suzuki, and Neil Young as the deacons, feel free.
But I need to ask: How stupid do you have to be to follow a group of rich jacka$$es any one of which has a carbon footprint the size of your average small town, and support them while they insist the peasants (that's you and I Brother) must live simpler lives for the good of the planet???
You have to be QUITE the idiot, IMHO.
GOt any real proof anywhere of global warming? Besides some garbage computer projections.
We Must Not Even Think of Accusing Leonardo DiCaprio of Hypocrisy
Friday’s crash of the Virgin Galactic space-plane in California was, of course, a tragedy. One test-pilot was killed and another seriously injured.
But there is, at least, a silver lining: There’s no need to worry about another possible issue concerning Richard Branson’s spaceflight venture—namely, that all those internal-combustion-powered flights would contribute to the dread danger of climate change.
Indeed, to the untrained eye and the untutored mind, it might seem that so much fuel-burning jet- and rocket-powered air-activity would inevitably add to the carbon load of the atmosphere.
But there’s no need to worry about that.
How do we know? Because as The New York Times report on the crash tells us, among those on the waiting list to fly on the Virgin aircraft is the actor Leonardo DiCaprio. And DiCaprio, of course, is a duly designated United Nations Messenger of Peace, with a specific mandate to focus on climate change. As UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon said of the actor in making the appointment last year:
In fact, because he is so special, DiCaprio can be a UN Messenger of Peace and be an early flyer on Richard Branson’s rocket project—if the $250,000-a-person flight program ever takes off.
So there is no hypocrisy here; none whatsoever.
Thus our political conscience requires us to conclude that accusations that DiCaprio is having it both ways—publicly soaking up liberal adulation for climate-change activism while privately seeking to go space-joyriding—are obviously the mean-spirited insinuations of right-wingers, clinging, no doubt, to their God and their guns
We Must Not Even Think of Accusing Leonardo DiCaprio of Hypocrisy
Friday’s crash of the Virgin Galactic space-plane in California was, of course, a tragedy. One test-pilot was killed and another seriously injured.
But there is, at least, a silver lining: There’s no need to worry about another possible issue concerning Richard Branson’s spaceflight venture—namely, that all those internal-combustion-powered flights would contribute to the dread danger of climate change.
Indeed, to the untrained eye and the untutored mind, it might seem that so much fuel-burning jet- and rocket-powered air-activity would inevitably add to the carbon load of the atmosphere.
But there’s no need to worry about that.
How do we know? Because as The New York Times report on the crash tells us, among those on the waiting list to fly on the Virgin aircraft is the actor Leonardo DiCaprio. And DiCaprio, of course, is a duly designated United Nations Messenger of Peace, with a specific mandate to focus on climate change. As UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon said of the actor in making the appointment last year:
Mr. DiCaprio is a credible voice in the environmental movement, and has a considerable platform to amplify its message. I am pleased he has chosen to add his voice to UN efforts to raise awareness of the urgency and benefits of acting now to combat climate change.
Given DiCaprio’s estimable position, we can be certain that he would do nothing to jeopardize the environment by flying in carbon dioxide-producing machines.
In fact, because he is so special, DiCaprio can be a UN Messenger of Peace and be an early flyer on Richard Branson’s rocket project—if the $250,000-a-person flight program ever takes off.
So there is no hypocrisy here; none whatsoever.
Thus our political conscience requires us to conclude that accusations that DiCaprio is having it both ways—publicly soaking up liberal adulation for climate-change activism while privately seeking to go space-joyriding—are obviously the mean-spirited insinuations of right-wingers, clinging, no doubt, to their God and their guns
We Must Not Even Think of Accusing Leonardo DiCaprio of Hypocrisy
His acting ability being on par with his knowledge of climate.
Does he know what the carbon footprint of the average movie is?
Does he know what the carbon footprint of the average movie is?
you were asked to substantiate your statement concerning ocean warming. Is this a problem... for you?
probably? Climate does not just "change" on its own. Please state what causal tie(s) you interpret as the attribution behind today's relatively recent warming/climate change.
that's called a cherry-pick... around the significant anomalous ENSO event of 97/98. It's also you isolating on surface temperature only.
notwithstanidng your global wealth redistribution nonsense, you seem to concentrate your named target focus on non-scientists - well done! Why do deniers couch their denial in strawmen?
How typical.
In the absence of any real argument or tangible proof, the truther coward logic is to demand that someone prove a negative.
Just another in a long line of truthers that have come here with no facts to back their claim and when called on it demand that we prove them wrong.