Nickolai

Science has known that co2 is a green house gas since about 1850. A lava flow volcano will increase co2 an ash eruption such as mt St Helens will have a cooling effect Sun spot activity varies

Rufus Loc: Deep South

We also know that just 4 hrs. of Mt. St. Helens erupting negates all the futile attempts by man to do anything about it. The lies of global warming, climate change and carbon emissions in an attempt to scare people is the real damage.

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

Moldy,

It seems even Governor Brown and the Pope cannot get every-ones attn, even on OPP...

permafrost Loc: Minnesota

rufus,

You should be embarrassed to post something like that.

I have refuted the ST. Helens garbage twice myself. It is not true. Look up all the facts about volcanoes and see for yourself. They are not a long term factor...

Also the CO2 stuff has been worked over again and again..

Nickolai

That's not true Mt St Helens affect on the earths atmosphere is negligible. The worlds volcanoes produce abut 200 million tones of Co2 annually compared to 30 billion tones of Co2 from the burning of fossil fuel around the globe

Rufus Loc: Deep South

There are as many scientists on either side of this issue. I do not believe anything out of this admin. or from the left. They have simply lied to 320 million Americans way to many times. They have used up all of their allotted lies. I choose to believe my college professors and the scientific evidence that disputes this rubbish. It is your choice to buy into it. It is my choice to believe otherwise. As far as I know my professors never lied to me. I am going with what I know based on experience. This admin. and the leftist liberal agenda have an extremely poor track record.

moldyoldy

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

The "money Machines" (banksters, corporations,The FED) are the US government. They own both parties. They select who gets the nomination in both parties.
The elections are a dog and pony show.


WE have the best government money can buy
The “TWO” Party Scam
Corruption in both parties runs deep.
The video below shows it all: A compilation of footage that shows the tactics used by the MSM to block Ron Paul’s candidacy. Everything from; ignoring, bias, and lies. That included FOX. Even Republican caucus fraud.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ouBoyu9gGY
Don't believe voting machines were rigged against Ron Paul? Study this for awhile.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_WBo4sfmi4

jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

Refute #1
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php

jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

Refute#2

http://www.petitionproject.org/

jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

Refute#3

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

First you need to research volcanos, before you get on your high horse as an expert. Expert at communists/progressive / liberal maybe.

First DAILY on average five (5) volcanoes blow there top up to 30,000 feet into our atmosphere. In 2014 there were as many volcanoes as in the previous century combined. Earthquakes are following the same records, unexplainable by scientists.
However predicted with perfection in bible prophecy.

The last 5 years more co-2 has been created by volcanoes than man world wide in the last 120 years.
So go do as I have done and do some research of just the last 3-5 years and learn.

jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

5 volcanoes on average, and the sun eerily quite post 11 year cycle. You need to update brother. More volcanoes in 2014, than the previous century combined.

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

Here it is:
Refute#3

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of...

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis
It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.
Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.
The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.
According to the newly published survey of geoscientists and engineers, merely 36 percent of respondents fit the “Comply with Kyoto” model. The scientists in this group “express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.”
The authors of the survey report, however, note that the overwhelming majority of scientists fall within four other models, each of which is skeptical of alarmist global warming claims.
The survey finds that 24 percent of the scientist respondents fit the “Nature Is Overwhelming” model. “In their diagnostic framing, they believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth.” Moreover, “they strongly disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal lives.”
Another group of scientists fit the “Fatalists” model. These scientists, comprising 17 percent of the respondents, “diagnose climate change as both human- and naturally caused. ‘Fatalists’ consider climate change to be a smaller public risk with little impact on their personal life. They are skeptical that the scientific debate is settled regarding the IPCC modeling.” These scientists are likely to ask, “How can anyone take action if research is biased?”
The next largest group of scientists, comprising 10 percent of respondents, fit the “Economic Responsibility” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being natural or human caused. More than any other group, they underscore that the ‘real’ cause of climate change is unknown as nature is forever changing and uncontrollable. Similar to the ‘nature is overwhelming’ adherents, they disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal life. They are also less likely to believe that the scientific debate is settled and that the IPCC modeling is accurate. In their prognostic framing, they point to the harm the Kyoto Protocol and all regulation will do to the economy.”
The final group of scientists, comprising 5 percent of the respondents, fit the “Regulation Activists” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being both human- and naturally caused, posing a moderate public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life.” Moreover, “They are also skeptical with regard to the scientific debate being settled and are the most indecisive whether IPCC modeling is accurate.”

***Taken together, these four skeptical groups numerically blow away the 36 percent of scientists who believe global warming is human caused and a serious concern.

*******One interesting aspect of this new survey is the unmistakably alarmist bent of the survey takers. They frequently use terms such as “denier” to describe scientists who are skeptical of an asserted global warming crisis, and they refer to skeptical scientists as “speaking against climate science” rather than “speaking against asserted climate projections.” Accordingly, alarmists will have a hard time arguing the survey is biased or somehow connected to the ‘vast right-wing climate denial machine.’
*********Another interesting aspect of this new survey is that it reports on the beliefs of scientists themselves rather than bureaucrats who often publish alarmist statements without polling their member scientists. We now have meteorologists, geoscientists and engineers all reporting that they are skeptics of an asserted global warming crisis, yet the bureaucrats of these organizations frequently suck up to the media and suck up to government grant providers by trying to tell us the opposite of what their scientist members actually believe.
*********People who look behind the self-serving statements by global warming alarmists about an alleged “consensus” have always known that no such alarmist consensus exists among scientists. Now that we have access to hard surveys of scientists themselves, it is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

moldyoldy

Energy and oil companies can find plenty of like minded people to sign on to thier craziness, while lining thier pockets. Jack has not refuted anything so far.