blade,

You are beyond redemption...

the world is fighting the battle without the United States.. but the republicans and the right wing orange, refuse to believe fact that are right in front of them..

Try and follow the upcoming NYT article, it should be interesting to say the least.. Don`t miss it..


This coming week, The New York Times Magazine will devote an entire publication of the Sunday magazine to the issue of climate change. The single-themed edition called "Losing Earth," will look at scientific discoveries and decisions made on climate change from 1979 to 1989 through the story of a former NASA scientist. Nathaniel Rich, who authored the edition, joins Hari Sreenivasan for more.

This coming week, The New York Times, in partnership with the Pulitzer Center, will publish “Losing Earth.” a single-themed issue of its Sunday magazine. The topic is climate change and the scientific discoveries and decisions made in the decade between 1979 and 1989. Writer-at-Large Nathaniel Rich centers his story on two men Rafe Pomerance, an environmental activist, and former NASA scientist James Hansen, one of the first to warn the world about greenhouse gases and global warming.

It was remarkably different, and in many ways, remarkably the same. By 1979, there was a strong consensus within the scientific community about the nature of the problem. The fundamental science hasn’t really evolved since then. It’s only been refined really. There was no politicization of the issue throughout the decade. A number of prominent Republicans were leading the charge to insist on a major climate policy, and industry, which we now blame for much of our paralysis, had not turned against science or truth and if anything, especially in the early part of the decade, was engaged in trying to understand the problem and determine solutions. Over the course of the decade, the issue rose to major national attention and a process for a global treaty was in hand. We failed at the end of that to sign a binding agreement.

You write at one point that the American Petroleum Institute in the late 50s and 60s, they were conducting their own research and coming to the same conclusions that the scientists were. And you also point out that even the CIA in 1974 had written a report looking at climate change basically as a national security threat or a global security threat.

I remain a skeptic. I am not convinced by you in fact I see hysteria in your posts. I have done my own research, including downloading temperatures from towns I am familiar with around the world and have not identified any increases or trends supporting increases. In addition to other parameters that are available such as sea levels and upper atmosphere readings, none of this supports your position. You can preach all you will but without facts you do not have me as a follower. I would imagine that the only way to determine if global warming is a threat, or happening outside of normal variations due to the many natural influences, would be to wait a hundred years or so and look at it again. I promise you that if, after that time, you are proved to be right, I will bow down and genuflect myself to you and admit publicly that you are a true seer and sage.

There, make you feel better?

The New York Times???? Go figure.

Biggest Fraud In Science History

NASA Doubling Warming Since 2001

NASA has massively altered their global temperature data over the past 15 years, to double global warming.

NASA Hiding The Decline

NASA Hiding The Decline In Sea Level And Temperature

NASA Sea Level Fraud

NASA/CRU Southern Hemisphere Temperature Fraud

The Corruption Of NASA Temperature History

Good. Skepticism is at least a sign of an open mind. The data is in, and there are numerous locations across the globe where record highs have been reached in the last few months. Try examining information from places you are not personally acquainted with. If you want to confuse weather with climate, fine. I'm not preaching. I am just putting out the facts that about 97% of scientists specializing in the study of climate and climate change agree with. And I am certainly NOT hunting for "followers." Any hysteria you see in my posts comes not from me, but from your own inner feelings.

Good. Skepticism is at least a sign of an open mind. The data is in, and there are numerous locations across the globe where record highs have been reached in the last few months. Try examining information from places you are not personally acquainted with. If you want to confuse weather with climate, fine. I'm not preaching. I am just putting out the facts that about 97% of scientists specializing in the study of climate and climate change agree with. And I am certainly NOT hunting for "followers." Any hysteria you see in my posts comes not from me, but from your own inner feelings.

You say I confuse weather with climate yet you claim that there have been record highs in a few locations in the last few months. Who is confused?

No, boofhead, I did not say there have been record highs in a "few" locations in the last few months. There have been MANY record highs across the world in the last few months. Don't try to minimize important facts. Go do some research. There are no studies that show that 97% or even any appreciable number of scientists now claiming that climate change and global warming are not due primarily to man's activities. I am a lot more up-to-date than you evidently think.. But I am really curious about where you got information about the 97% reversal in beliefs about climate change. Let's see your source for this one ! The only religious fervor I have is that I hate to see science misrepresented.

If you say 97 percent of climate scientists agree you are not up-to-date with studies that show perhaps the opposite is true. To continue to base your case on lies or fallacies is more a sign of religious fervor than anything I have posted.
Repeating the falsehoods and rabid opinions as you do almost on a daily basis must have a reason and it is logical to assume that attracting followers is precisely what you are doing.

blade,

You are beyond redemption...

the world is fighting the battle without the United States.. but the republicans and the right wing orange, refuse to believe fact that are right in front of them..

Try and follow the upcoming NYT article, it should be interesting to say the least.. Don`t miss it..


This coming week, The New York Times Magazine will devote an entire publication of the Sunday magazine to the issue of climate change. The single-themed edition called "Losing Earth," will look at scientific discoveries and decisions made on climate change from 1979 to 1989 through the story of a former NASA scientist. Nathaniel Rich, who authored the edition, joins Hari Sreenivasan for more.

This coming week, The New York Times, in partnership with the Pulitzer Center, will publish “Losing Earth.” a single-themed issue of its Sunday magazine. The topic is climate change and the scientific discoveries and decisions made in the decade between 1979 and 1989. Writer-at-Large Nathaniel Rich centers his story on two men Rafe Pomerance, an environmental activist, and former NASA scientist James Hansen, one of the first to warn the world about greenhouse gases and global warming.

It was remarkably different, and in many ways, remarkably the same. By 1979, there was a strong consensus within the scientific community about the nature of the problem. The fundamental science hasn’t really evolved since then. It’s only been refined really. There was no politicization of the issue throughout the decade. A number of prominent Republicans were leading the charge to insist on a major climate policy, and industry, which we now blame for much of our paralysis, had not turned against science or truth and if anything, especially in the early part of the decade, was engaged in trying to understand the problem and determine solutions. Over the course of the decade, the issue rose to major national attention and a process for a global treaty was in hand. We failed at the end of that to sign a binding agreement.

You write at one point that the American Petroleum Institute in the late 50s and 60s, they were conducting their own research and coming to the same conclusions that the scientists were. And you also point out that even the CIA in 1974 had written a report looking at climate change basically as a national security threat or a global security threat.

Says who?

84% of the world population are religious. One third are Christians, 25% are Muslims, 20% are Jews. These are the only monotheistic religions. 15% are Hindus and 7% are Buddhists. These are examples of polytheistic religions. There are many lesser religions, most of which are localized, dysfunctional or otherwise stagnated.

There is one religion, however, that is a particularly bizarre polytheistic faith. Its gods are ethereal, mystical and atmospheric, no one knows how many deities the faithful worship or what they actually pray for. It was founded and is expounded by false prophets and corrupt clergy, they write their own gospels on a contingency basis, the scripture is fluid and ever-changing. It builds gaseous cathedrals and airy churches. The high priests preach fire and brimstone to an extraordinarily zealous and gullible congregation. For lack of creativity and divine inspiration, this religion goes by the mundane title of Anthropogenic Global Warming Alarmism.

Says who?

84% of the world population are religious. One third are Christians, 25% are Muslims, 20% are Jews. These are the only monotheistic religions. 15% are Hindus and 7% are Buddhists. These are examples of polytheistic religions. There are many lesser religions, most of which are localized, dysfunctional or otherwise stagnated.

There is one religion, however, that is a particularly bizarre polytheistic faith. Its gods are ethereal, mystical and atmospheric, no one knows how many deities the faithful worship or what they actually pray for. It was founded and is expounded by false prophets and corrupt clergy, they write their own gospels on a contingency basis, the scripture is fluid and ever-changing. It builds gaseous cathedrals and airy churches. The high priests preach fire and brimstone to an extraordinarily zealous and gullible congregation. For lack of creativity and divine inspiration, this religion goes by the mundane title of Anthropogenic Global Warming Alarmism.