Global Warming Hoax...The Reality (Page 18): ? Yep 99-99 % of research climatologists/scientists are stupid, gee why did we think of that? You're so smart.:sm09: :sm16: :sm16: :sm16:...

Morgan

thinksense wrote:

No matter what you say to a Gobal Warming advocate they will always dream up some answer that is supposed to negate what you have said.no matter how outlandish. Are these people just stupid, brainwashed or shills and trolls?

The seas are rising alarmingly, so Al Gore purchases a seafront mansion? They just ignore that.

Other things they like to ignore is that you could have 5 times the CO2 and it wouldn't affect the warming of the globe. Other elements and substances would affect that warming but not the CO2. How do we know because it has happened in the past without any evidence of the Earth heating up significantly. None of the "experts , at least those writing here will even address these things. They just conveniently never even talk about them.

Well here are a couple more....I doubt if they will address them either...........

The Anchorage Daily News reports that Alaska’s “cool late-summer weather over the central Arctic Ocean helped preserve sea ice, slowing its melting enough to rank this year’s annual ice minimum as only the eighth lowest in the satellite record, far from the worst it’s been.”

Record cold. Record snow. Recovering sea ice. But, things are not always as they appear.

The U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space and Technology announced in February 2017 they are investigating the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for alleged climate data manipulation after whistleblowers stepped forward, including Dr. John Bates, former principal scientist at the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville North Carolina who claims NOAA scientists put a “thumb on the scale” to favor their global warming argument.

Maybe this is not about science at all. Maybe it’s more about phony prophet$ painting fake pictures to produce an alternate reality.

Gore said the Arctic would be ice free by 2014 and the guy that Democrats call a “prophet,” James Hansen, former director of NASA’s Godard Institute for Space Studies, predicted the Arctic ice would melt by the end of 2017.
Oh Yeah. Let's see these "science fakers"talk about real stuff, not the same old disproven tripe they keep bringing up.

Oh, and don't expect me to waste time talking the shill/Science Ghouls who bring their nonsense here. I've got better things to do.

No matter what you say to a Gobal Warming advocate... (show quote)

?

Yep 99-99 % of research climatologists/scientists are stupid, gee why did we think of that? You're so smart.

shortbeans

purchase the book, then read it and only then can we then have a discussion on who is smart and or stupid.

Morgan

PeterS wrote:

The trouble is, by conservatives own arguments they've proven that global warming is accelerating which only proves that they don't even listen to themselves. The minimum ice extent for the Arctic averaged 2.4 million sq miles from 81 to 2010 and the last ten seasons have all been below that and below the linear regression line for the period. What this means is that warming is accelerating, not slowing down, and may well be past the ability to be reversed.

This is what happens when people are too afraid to face the facts, rather than just dealing with it and making changes.

But what actually amazes me is the standpoint of the people who post this misinformation in the media I realize to get less resistance but have the lack complete sensibility to see the dire consequences in the future. Are they really so ego driven they only see within the parameters of the longevity of their own life. These people have the emotional IQ of a two-year-old. They simply cannot see past their own noses, even as you say when their own words and logic raps them along the side of their own head.

Morgan

peter11937 wrote:

Watch and listen...... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nq4Bc2WCsdE

Ahh Youtube you get to go to the head of the class

shortbeans

I stand by my last post. until you read the book I will have nothing to say to you

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

Morgan wrote:

This is what happens when people are too afraid to... (show quote)

You are one dense feline, Morgan.
You couldn't discern fact from fiction if your life depended on it.
Is your last name Little?
The sky will remain where it is, no matter what your daddy told you.

PeterS

shortbeans wrote:

Climate is cyclical in nature, which is the opinion of Maxwell and Wheeler in the book “A Roadmap of Time”, by Brad Steiger. Maxwell and Wheeler called them energy cycles. There are only four weather cycles, (which are listed in no specific order), that can happen: warm/wet, warm/dry, cold/wet, cold/dry. This book written back in the 70’s has the cycles graphed out, and if you are the lucky one to see those graphs in color you will be able to clearly view all the differentials of those cycles. This customer’s review tells it best

Top customer reviews
John Carpenter

5.0 out of 5 starsUnderstanding "Global Warming" - as a weather cycle?

April 6, 2007
Format: Hardcover|Verified Purchase

A Roadmap of Time is a key to understanding the current Global Warming debate. Written in the early 1970's before the topic became politically charged, Brad Steiger tells the story and presents the evidence of three researchers of weather cycles. He explores the effect of weather cycles on crops, the economy, social and political changes, and population. The data bank used by these researchers is massive, spanning over 10,000 years.

And sure enough, we're in a warming pattern. But what Mr. Gore doesn't let on, is that between 100-year cycles, a 500-year cycle, and sunspot cycles, the warming cycle will end with a cold-dry period, and then a cold-wet period. Pollution of the environment may affect the weather cycle slightly, but so do volcanoes and forest fires. The predictions for the year 2000, made 25 years before, are pretty accurate.

The best reason to read this book is to understand the current weather debate, free of the political baggage. Another reason is to understand and anticipate political, social, and economic trends, as the authors intended.

The book is out of print, but used copies are available. It was a 'Book of the Month Club' selection in the mid-1970's, so there are many copies out there. Get one!

My thoughts:
Politicians and others individuals are the people/citizens that have caused the climate crises to evolve. This is being done by individuals with a monetary/ power over people desire, that have made the climate crises what it is today, just a narrative to excite the world’s population in believing that they are the ones to blame for the climate crises, all the while taking their hard earn money, in the form of taxes and more unnecessary regulation etc.

The story/ lie, now becomes visible, with just enough of truth to make it believable. Classic example of disinformation that our government is so happy to lay upon all of us.

Climate is cyclical in nature, which is the opinio... (show quote)

Below are some of the books written by your author:

Medicine power; the American Indian's revival of his spiritual heritage and its relevance for modern man.
By: Steiger, Brad.
Published: (1974)

Medicine talk; a guide to walking in balance and surviving on the Earth Mother.
By: Steiger, Brad.
Published: (1975)

Revelation: the divine fire.
By: Steiger, Brad.
Published: (1973)

Project Blue Book : the top secret UFO findings revealed /
By: Steiger, Brad.
Published: (1976)

Totems : the transformative power of your personal animal totem /
By: Steiger, Brad.
Published: (1997)

You will live again : dramatic case histories of reincarnation /
By: Steiger, Brad.
Published: (1996)

The American Indian medicine dreambook /
By: Steiger, Brad.

Published: (1993)
Alien meetings /
By: Steiger, Brad.
Published: (1978)

All I can say is that I once dumped a girl when she said she believed in reincarnation. I'm going to dump your author for the same reason...

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

PeterS wrote:

Below are some of the books written by your author... (show quote)

"All I can say is that I once dumped a girl when she said she believed in reincarnation."
Petey!
Weren't you in the little Rascal episodes?
Do you still have that ring around your eye?

I bet you were that girls pet, and refused to get potty trained

Morgan

eagleye13 wrote:

You are one dense feline, Morgan.
You couldn't discern fact from fiction if your life depended on it.
Is your last name Little?
The sky will remain where it is, no matter what your daddy told you.

...and your vacuum is calling...it's amazing how people project their own reflection, as far as a discernment from fact and fiction, that is exactly you and all your conspiracy theories, that is you my friend, not I. Why reality is hard to bear for you along with global warming.

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

Morgan wrote:

...and your vacuum is calling...it's amazing how people project their own reflection, as far as a discernment from fact and fiction, that is exactly you and all your conspiracy theories, that is you my friend, not I. Why reality is hard to bear for you along with global warming.

The '97% consensus' of scientists on climate change is complete bunk... fraudulent statistic repeated everywhere is based on blatant scientific FRAUD

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/052317_climate_change_scientific_consensus_fraudulent_science_survey.html#ixzz4JLPs9xQq

NaturalNews) The brain-dead leftist media isn't really in the news business anymore. It's actually in the business of zombie control... with the zombies being, of course, the leftist libtard obedient propaganda swallowers who are easily fooled by sleight-of-hand trickery being paraded as science. (Then again, there are also CONtards on the right who are easily fooled by fraudulent "GMO science," so the criticism deserves to be equally distributed across the political establishment...)

If you've ever has the misfortune of listening to the libtard leftist media, you've probably heard the claim -- repeated like a mantra chant to Gaia -- that "97% of scientists believe in man-made climate change" (or some similar paraphrased version of this fraudulent claim).

Fortunately, there's a book by Mark Steyn that helps sort out the truth from the fiction. It's called A Disgrace to the Profession and features short essays and articles by scientists who speak out against the global warming / climate change hoax being perpetrated on the world.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/052317_climate_change_scientific_consensus_fraudulent_science_survey.html#ixzz4JLQI0Rxa

PASADENA, CA, July 21, 2015 – Arguing with people who have already come to a conclusion based on a loose understanding of half the story is difficult. Large amounts of misinformation are unfortunately common in today’s political arena thanks to social media, shoddy journalism, millennial ambivalence and a generally apathetic view toward data and public policy. Nowhere in today’s society is this idea more prevalent than the climate change debate, formally known as global warming.

Global warming was the hot topic about 10 years ago when Al Gore’s documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth”, hit theaters and almost instantly scared millions of people into believing the Earth was hanging on by a string thanks to irresponsible Americans filling up their gas tanks one two many times.

The green energy lobby took charge and didn’t look back, raising hundreds of millions of dollars and sponsoring regulation after regulation with the intent of eliminating fossil fuels and ignoring the unintended consequence of killing jobs and destroying livelihoods. Day after day, the mainstream media spread the word that temperatures were soaring, the oceans were rising, and natural disasters were growing deadlier all because of man made global warming’s detrimental effect on the earth’s atmosphere.

After a few years of hysteria, something happened that brought the global warming train to a screeching halt. Scientists began to realize that the earth’s temperature wasn’t rising. In fact, we now know that the average global temperature hasn’t gone up in at least 15 years. Try as they might, and they did try, environmentalists could not cover up this contradictory piece of evidence, so they decided to change the name of their movement to “climate change”.

Man made climate change supporters, primarily on the left, have attempted to gloss over these glaring holes in their argument by creating the illusion that the scientific community is completely on their side and that any questioning of that science is a waste of time. They did that by coming up with the false narrative that 97% of all scientists agree with them and continued to repeat it over and over until people who weren’t really paying attention started to accept it as fact.

It’s not a fact but yet for some reason, everyone from the guy in line next to you at Starbucks all the way up to the President of the United States tout this statistic as indisputable evidence. The only truth regarding this statement is that it was dubiously manufactured in order to dilute the reality that scientists have not coalesced around one position one way or the other.

The 97% number was created by meticulously selecting certain surveys using murky terminology to formulate a specific narrative.

shortbeans

To help you out, Brad Steiger is not my author, he is an author of a book I just happened to have read, of which I doubt you have read.
Brad Steiger - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brad_Steiger
He became a full-time writer by 1967. He has authored/co-authored almost 170 books, which have sold 17 million copies. He has written biographies on Greta Garbo, Judy Garland, and Rudolph Valentino, the latter of which was adapted as a film in 1977.
I have not authored any books, so that leaves the question of how many have you authored?
Your writing skills suggest that you are an educated individual, correct?
Do you believe this world could come under control of a One World Government?
Do you believe that this world will be fighting another World War?
The reason I asked is because at the end of the book "A Roadmap of Time" (authored in the 70's), explains just that, and the justification is the past weather cycles and the history as to what did happen during those cycles. Are the weather cycles an exact predictor of events, well I surely don't know, however it might have some validity to the suggestion that it may be true. Me I would rather be prepared than not.
Furthermore, your writing skills and the way of displaying only the books, that Brad authored, to try to discredit the author and myself(which the left/progressive do all the time) speaks volumes as to what your beliefs may be.
Farming used to be done by mules/horses and they wore blinders. I suggest you remove yours and change your filtered glasses you look through.
You see an individuals mind is like a parachute, if it ain't open it won't work. You seem to be in free-fall without your parachute.

PeterS

shortbeans wrote:

To help you out, Brad Steiger is not my author, he... (show quote)

I wasn't discrediting anyone but simply showing the types of books the author wrote. Reincarnation isn't science and when my girlfriend tried to convince me that we were connected in a past life, other than wishful thinking, there was no means for her to do so. So if global warming is a hoax, aside from wishful thinking, how do you pretend to display it? Because I won't attach as science that which isn't doesn't make me closed minded but simply someone who believes in reason. Your author may be a down right wonder but he isn't a scientist so when the topic is global warming I think we do ourselves a disservice if we don't try to ground it in the sciences from the get-go...

PeterS

eagleye13 wrote:

"All I can say is that I once dumped a girl when she said she believed in reincarnation."
Petey!
Weren't you in the little Rascal episodes?
Do you still have that ring around your eye?

I bet you were that girls pet, and refused to get potty trained

No, no pet, and if she wasn't such a good piece of ass I wouldn't have bothered with her as long as I did...

PeterS

son of witless wrote:

You are technically correct that the Glacier retreated a lot between 1941 and 2004. I dispute that this is as significant as you believe it to be. You might have heard of the Little Ice Age. Since that ended about 1850, guess what? Glaciers have retreated. In fact Glaciers have retreated since the late 1700s. I say we are in a naturally reoccurring cycle of warming. You cannot prove me wrong.

My argument with 'thinksense' proves you wrong:

"The linear trend line for the Arctic minimum ice extent has been negative by 13% since 1979. The minimum extent average for 1981 to 2010 is 2.4 million square miles. 2016 was 1.6 million sq miles and 2017 was 1.94 million sq miles or -33% and -21% respectively and well below the 13% average decline. What this means is that not only is the Arctic continuing to decline but it is declining at an ever increasing rate."

So in only 50 years the Arctic has gone into a warming pattern that cannot be reversed. There is no historical precedent for this. And yes glaciers have retreated in the past but it's this same 50 year period that demonstrates a decline in glacierization for which our current ice sheet cannot recover. We are going to lose our ice sheet and there is nothing that can be done to prevent this.

mwdegutis Loc: Illinois

PeterS wrote:

So in only 50 years the Arctic has gone into a warming pattern that cannot be reversed. There is no historical precedent for this. And yes glaciers have retreated in the past but it's this same 50 year period that demonstrates a decline in glacierization for which our current ice sheet cannot recover. We are going to lose our ice sheet and there is nothing that can be done to prevent this.

In that case Petey let's party hardy for tomorrow we die! As Bugs Bunny used to say...what a maroon!