jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

I should have posted the 100 things L*****t Liberals get behind that end up being proved wrong, President Trump and Ex president obama would be an excellent start, but for now will focus on the L*****t Liberals anger towards Trump for stepping out of the United Nations g****l w*****g s**m.

Why did NOAA get caught fudging temputures?

Why did scientists that were on the team that produced documents for the world's "Global man made warming" meeting in Switzerland come forward out of guilt stating they altered the data to prove "man made"?
Why do university professors that teach climate get fired when they speak out against the "man made" warming?

Why did NASA get caught altering data to be warmer, along with altering models?

Why do l*****t support climate models that are proven not to work?

Why do l*****t continue to use the 97% of scientists agree "man made" when 90% of the scientist were not climate scientists or even a weather man and has been proven a false statement for several years?

And a hundred other why's?



100 reasons why c*****e c****e is natural and not man-made
Submitted by FREE ENERGY on January 10, 2016
100 reasons why c*****e c****e is natural and not man-made

HERE are the 100 reasons, released in a dossier issued by the European Foundation, why c*****e c****e is natural and not man-made:
1) There is “no real scientific proof” that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man’s activity.

2) Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.

3) Warmer periods of the Earth’s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels.

4) After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.

5) Throughout the Earth’s history, temperatures have often been warmer than now and CO2 levels have often been higher - more than ten times as high.

6) Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time.

7) The 0.7°C increase in the average global temperature over the last hundred years is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends.

8) The IPCC theory is driven by just 60 scientists and favorable reviewers not the 4,000 usually cited.

9) Leaked e-mails from British climate scientists - in a scandal known as “Climate-gate” - suggest that that has been manipulated to exaggerate g****l w*****g

10) A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of c*****e c****e during the past hundred years.

11) Politicians and activists claim rising sea levels are a direct cause of g****l w*****g but sea levels rates have been increasing steadily since the last ice age 10,000 ago

12) Philip Stott, Emeritus Professor of Biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London says c*****e c****e is too complicated to be caused by just one factor, whether CO2 or clouds

13) Peter Lilley MP said last month that,
“fewer people in Britain than in any other country believe in the importance of g****l w*****g. That is despite the fact that our Government and our political class - predominantly - are more committed to it than their counterparts in any other country in the world”.
14) In pursuit of the g****l w*****g rhetoric, wind farms will do very little to nothing to reduce CO2 emissions

15) Professor Plimer, Professor of Geology and Earth Sciences at the University of Adelaide, stated that the idea of taking a single trace gas in the atmosphere, accusing it and finding it guilty of total responsibility for c*****e c****e, is an “absurdity”

Click on link to view 85 more reasons.

http://forums.tesla.com/forum/forums/100-reasons-why-c*****e-c****e-natural-and-not-manmade

I'm not expecting any intelligent rebuttals from l*****t, but bring it with the typical anti-Trump cartoons.

God Bless America
God Bless Israel
God Bless and protect President Trump

old marine Loc: America home of the brave

Since the socialists democrats have left Washington D.C the tempeturre has noticeable dropped.

Since they mostly relocated to California there has been a sharp increase in the temperatures. Coincidence? I wonder.

badbob85037

One of the biggest problem facing Earth according to Children between K and 12 is G****l W*****g. More proof both the media and government ran schools say and teach lies they want them to believe. Myself I believe if you remove the Banksters all the other problems will go away

Abel

If you want to learn a little about c*****e c****e, read the book by John Casey called Dark Winter; it has a number of graphics and charts showing the trends for the last two hundred years or so. Short, and easy to read book.

The warming peaked out around 2007/2008 and we are now on the down slope of the 200 year cycle going toward another minimum that will likely cause major food shortages due to a shortened growing season worldwide. The younger folks should probably save their heavy coats since it may get as cold as it did in the mid 1800s. For me, I've likely seen my last "g****l w*****g," but I'm h*****g on to my heavy coat!

The c*****e c****es all the time. To understand what is happening, look at the temperature AVERAGES of the 200 year cycle, not the PEAKS of the 11 year cycles; it all follows the activity of the sun and its sunspots, and the sun is now going into hibernation. We should start warming again, on the average, somewhere around 2050 give or take a few years.

Floyd Brown Loc: Milwaukee WI

It is what man adds that can be controlled.
The planet is getting warmer.
It is getting warmer more in the artic regions the most.
The ice is melting the oceans are rising.

There is now way any of this can be denied rationally.
Ways to reduce mans adding to the problem have been offered.

Perhaps we can find other ways to help like:
Helping to cool the oceans.

It can be done by pumping up colder water to the surface in the warmest areas.
This may have a favorable affect on reducing the forces of tropical storms.
This would add to the over all warming of the oceans long range.

This would need a compensating cooling of the waters in artic regions.
Creating snow would work.

The more of the that snow that falls on land areas.
The slower it will melt & may even add to the over all permeant snow cover.
Reducing water level a bit.

Open water absorbs the heat of the sun.
The clouds would block some of the heat from the sun.

The snow when it melts will also cool the water.

If we even spent a small part of what we spend on cleaning up storm damage caused now.
I could show an improvement.

Instead of building military ships we can build ships to spread cooler ocean water on the surface.
in warm areas & make snow in colder areas.

Floyd Brown Loc: Milwaukee WI

Sorry.

We have the farmers almanac. If I want the latest most accurate forecast I prefer todays weather forecasters.
If I want a better picture of what the weather is going to be over the coming decades I will not rely on what happened in the past.

trucksterbud

Some interesting info on the C*****e C****e Science (not):

The REAL F**E NEWS exposed: '97% of scientists agree on c*****e c****e' is an engineered h**x... here's what the media never told you:

(NaturalNews) In the current ridiculous battle over "real news" vs. "f**e news," the establishment media liars all claim that c*****e c****e is the perfect example of how "f**e news" keeps interfering with their t***hful facts. They repeatedly claim that 97% of scientists agree on man-made c*****e c****e, and therefore anyone who disagrees is obviously shoveling "f**e" news.

But wait a second. Where does that "97%" claim really come from? They sure repeat it a lot. Is it a legitimate representation of the science?

Author Mark Steyn dug into that question in the search for a more authoritative answer. What he uncovered was so much fraud and deception by c*****e c****e propagandists that he compiled an entire book on the matter entitled A Disgrace to the Profession. Here's an excerpt that explains the shocking intellectual fraud behind the "97% of scientists" claim:

An opinion survey of earth scientists on global c*****e c****e was conducted by Margaret R K Zimmerman, MS, and published by the University of Illinois in 2008.

Aside from his support from Dr Pantsdoumi, Mann often claims the imprimatur of "settled science": 97 per cent of the world's scientists supposedly believe in catastrophic anthropogenic g****l w*****g requiring massive government intervention. That percentage derives from a survey conducted for a thesis by M R K Zimmerman.

The "survey" was a two-question, online questionnaire sent to 10,257 earth scientists, of whom 3,146 responded.

Of the responding scientists, 96.2 per cent came from North America.

Only 6.2 per cent came from Canada. So the United States is overrepresented even within that North American sample.

Nine per cent of US respondents are from California. So California is overrepresented within not just the US sample: it has over twice as large a share of the sample as Europe, Asia, Australia, the Pacific, Latin America and Africa combined.

Of the ten per cent of non-US respondents, Canada has 62 per cent.

Not content with such a distorted sample, the researchers then selected 79 of their sample and declared them "experts."

Of those 79 scientists, two were excluded from a second supplementary question. So 75 out of 77 made it through to the final round, and 97.4 per cent were found to agree with "the consensus". That's where the 97 per cent comes from.

So this is a very Michael Mann "reconstruction": just as a couple of Californian bristlecones can determine the climate for a millennium, so a couple of dozen Californian scientists can determine the consensus of the world.

Nonetheless, the compilers also invited comments from respondents and published them in the appendices. In terms of specific scientific material, the hockey stick attracted three comments - one blandly positive, the other two not so much.

Wow, you mean the 97% consensus number comes from just 75 scientists that were hand-picked from an email survey?
Yep. Out of the hundreds of thousands of scientists in the world, only 75 of them were selected to "count" for the c*****e c****e survey that every mainstream media news organization quotes as FACT.

Not quite the "settled science" you've been told, is it? In fact, it all looks rather shoddy.

Yet this is the sort of propaganda that passes as "real news" while anyone who questions obviously faulty science claims is said to be trafficking in "f**e news."

So if "real news" is based on the cherry-picked answers from a wildly distorted, misrepresentative group of scientists whose responses were compiled by a pro-c*****e c****e "scientist" who obviously altered the responses to fit her own subjective beliefs, just how solid is the claimed authority of "real" news authenticity in the first place?

Furthermore, the very idea that science is "settled" is anti-scientific. Science is never really settled, since the heart of legitimate science is an openness to exploration, discovery and revolutions in new ideas that render old ideas obsolete. Yet today, we are told by the Ministry of T***h fact checkers and monopolistic purveyors of self-proclaimed "real news" that only their views are legitimate and no one else is allowed to even question a "settled" set of beliefs

Link here: http://www.naturalnews.com/056116_f**e_news_climate_change_science_h**x.html#

jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

Makes sense, after all the Democrats have turned California into a hell hole. Look at any state that has had long term democrat control and see how bankrupt, regulated, garbage cans they have made them

old marine Loc: America home of the brave

Stop and think about it. G****l w*****g started around the same time all these atoms and hydrogen bombs were being tested.

When the testing stopped g****l w*****g started decreasing. Do you realize the tremendous heat they produce when they explode? That is the cause of g****l w*****g and cooling.

Floyd Brown Loc: Milwaukee WI

Is that all you have?

So you base your whole view of c*****e c****e on that single issue?

The c*****e c****e issue is relay based on provable fats both visible & measurable.

I would advise you not to sleep at night any where below 50 feet of sea level with out a plan to leave the area on short notice.

It would also be advisable not to invest any money you may need or want later on any property below that 50 foot level.

Also be aware of the cost that you may have to help pay for correction or replacement to areas needed.
Costs of disasters are spread across a wide range & in may ways.

jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

Thanks for broadening that most important fact. A few years ago an investigative journalist got ahold of the list of scientists not the 75 so must have been the first se******n and posted their credentials. Everything from biologist, physics professors, agriculture, astronomers, you name it.
Sounds like a lot of the l*****t polls. Send a questionnaire out to 5000 people, discard a few thousand that don't answer them correctly, then send a second set of questions to the ones they know will answer according to their agenda. Then MSN, CNN are only too happy to vomit out the lie and continue programming the left.

jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

Did you miss the focal point of the post?
Is anyone arguing that we do not have c*****e c****e?.

Snowing in June, various places in the middle east, record heat in the United States, The artic ice sheet is again rebuilding, the south pole has greatly expanded, El Nino and LA Nina patterns have changed, the oceans currents have changed, the Sun's spots have been eerily calm.
Sorry to bust your ideologies but Co2 has nothing to do with these changes

http://www.ourmidland.com/opinion/editorials/article/Global-warming-attributed-to-CO2-emissions-a-h**x-6916658.php


Nature produces much more CO2 than man

In 2014 NASA finally launched a satellite that measures CO2 levels around the globe. They assumed that most of the CO2 would be coming from the industrialized northern hemisphere but much to their surprise it was coming from the rainforests in South America, Africa and China.
Man, machine, industry only produce. 00077% ( close to zero) of the CO2 and depending on the source there is between 338-425 ppm of CO2 and has been in our past as high as 5000 ppm.

NOAA's own data (actual data from NOAA) proves that there is no man made g****l w*****g.

http://joeforamerica.com/2018/03/al-gore-scared-noaa-never-global-warming/

Read this

http://rense.com/general96/keyreason.html

Lloyd, your aligning your thinking of man made g****l w*****g based on false ideology.
During the buildup of "man made g****l w*****g, spear headed by AL Gore, who pushed this narrative? It was the extreme environmentalist that gave it momentum along side of the government. But the climate did not cooperate. From 1997-2014 zero temperatures change. Remember what changed? The name, we went from man made g****l w*****g, to "C*****e c****e" because science was saying we are heading into an earth's cooling based on predictable cycles. But then we saw some of the biggest snow storms in the Midwest and east coast from 2015-2016 even 2017. The heat waves during the spring and summer lower west coast, South West were much needed to keep the narrative alive and what better place than our own backyard. The only problem is that the naive argument of the uninformed, they placed the argument on weather changes calling it c*****e c****e. Out of ignorance the ones supporting don't understand the difference of weather change vs c*****e c****e and irregularities in both Weather and climate.
What they further don't understand is the volcanic influence and when the argument is brought up they default to past studies, unfortunately the studies do not include the increase of activity from 5-10 major eruptions a month to 150 eruptions a month over the last fifteen years eruptions multiplying and scientists have proven that past mega activities changed the weather. We also now are learning the oceans Volcanoes follow land volcano decrease and increased activity, so ocean Volcanoes have also increased by several thousand % just as land. Can you see any common sense in this?

Have a great day

trucksterbud

Damn, what did I do,...??? Step on your toes...??? That one ricocheted right off your head and .....made it quite a ways out...

"The c*****e c****e issue is relay based on provable fats both visible & measurable."

I'm assuming you meant to say - the c*****e c****e issue is really based on provable facts both visible and measurable...

Additional info to upset your applecart...... Most c*****e c****e data starts off with something about CO2.... In case you didn't know, CO2 is what we humans generate when we breathe... Right..?? So why do most all these c*****e c****e claims tell us we have to do something about CO2...??

They never bring up the alternate reality they're pushing......trying to get rid of f****l f**l powered engines. F****l f**l engines - at this point in our human development - are the best bang for the buck we have.... Pure and simple. Where do you think all this electric car stuff is going...?? Nobody seems to realize that the electricity HAS to come from somewhere.... [ Hint here, coal fired power plants are our best bang for the buck. ]

There is a piece on Discovery that outlines just ONE volcanic eruption spews more pollutants into the atmosphere than the entire history of our evolution since the introduction of the internal combustion engine...

Another discovery for ya, gasoline engines emit CO1 (carbon monoxide) and diesels emit smaller amounts of that along with burned off CARBONS. What do carbons do when they are exhausted...?? Fall back to the ground.... i.e. - most of the pollution from a diesel falls back to the ground. Doesn't pollute.

So, in the end, all the ruckus over this crap is only a step away from psychosis.... as one side has no idea what they are talking about.... and they ignore any and all real data in favor of the MSM talking heads f**e news....

The real issue is the planet is STARVING for CO2. As recently evidenced by the rain forests dying out. There's and article on MSN this morning about it... But remember here, the global elite want the rain forests gone, then they can go in and pillage the oil and mineral assets of a nation....

As for me, ya I live just under 6000 ft. Not going to worry about this g****l w*****g and cooling.... Its been going on for about 14 million years....... if not more.

trucksterbud

Ya, and everybody is forgetting to add in the variable that the HAARP project in Alaska has done to the atmosphere. I mean superheating the chemtrails is really a bad idea seems to me. Nobody wants to talk about the global criminal cabal that want us eliminated... But, just a thought here, who are the global elite going to do business with and sell their goods to, if they do in 90% of us...???

And I'm old enough to remember when all this weather wasn't like this. SOMETHING, made it change...

Abel

The g****l w*****g, in this cycle, began about 1850 or so following what is known as a "mini-ice age," however the atom bombs came in around the end of WWII, which was much later. The "tremendous heat" of an atomic explosion relative to the size of the Earth might be somewhat comparable to lighting a match in a very large cave; in other words it would be about as bothersome as a tempest in a teapot.

We haven't had many atomic blasts for many years now, and the peak of the g****l w*****g peaked out around 2007 to 2008, which was much later than when testing and using nuclear weapons pretty much stopped. I guess someone forgot to tell the sun about that; the c*****e c****es follow the activity of the sun, which is now going into hibernation as indicated by the decreasing number of sunspots.

Since the cycle we are now in is about 200 years long, and we are now beyond the peak of warming and on the down-slope of the curve, we should probably be into the next mini-ice age sometime around 2030 to 2060.

Most so-called g****l w*****g "experts" are not even scientists, let alone climate scientists, and g****l w*****g is a s**m; Earths c*****e c****es continually, so study "c*****e c****es" instead of "weather changes," and pay attention to average temperature change over a 200 year period, not the changes of the 11 year sunspot cycles along the way. Go figger!