Morgan

Didn't think I had to post common knowledge.

karpenter Loc: Headin' Fer Da Hills !!

Stopping Global Warming Is The Goal, Right ??
If We Have That Power
The Next Logical Step Is Regulating The Climate Up/Down To Suit Us
How Is That Far-Fetched ??
What New Hoops Will We Be Forced To Leap Through Then ??

If The 500yr Cooling Period Was The Result Of A Catastrophic Event
(Why Not ??)
Then It Set The Dial Back On A Pre-Existing Heating Trend
That Could Only Re-Assert Itself 100yrs Ago And Take-Up Where It Left Off.
The Global Warming Extinction We're Heads-On-Fire Worried About 200yrs From Now
Should Have Happened 200yrs AGO

Either Way, We Didn't Start It, We Couldn't Have Stopped It Then
So There Is Nothing We Can Do To Stop It Now

Unless, Of Course, The Powers That Be Think We Can Regulate The Climate To Suit Ourselves
Then We'll Still Need To Determine What Is The Optimum Global Mean Temperature
What We'll All Have To Do Then To Maintain It, And Who's Dictator Will Be Barking Our Orders

Morgan

I was Not being general in that reply, haven't you read eagle's posts?

Big Bass

Good! I'm glad you haven't lost you Alinski handbook.

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

Care to respond, Morgan?
Morgan; Since you ignored this twice.

"We've made many great changes, many unnecessary changes, and many stupid changes." - Super Dave

One of the "stupidest" changes was outlawing CFC's (Freon 12,22,502, etc)
The patents were running out. There would have been competition to produce those refrigerants.
Taking CFC's off of the market, cost American consumers 100's of Billion$.
Those CFC's were cheap, efficient, and non-toxic.
It was all about making money for the insiders again.
Making all in place machinery (car refrigeration, home and industrial Air Conditioning and Refrigeration systems) "obsolete" by government decree.

As always; follow the inside money.

Michael Rich Loc: Lapine Oregon

I'm finally convinced,... we're going to trade our furniture for truck inner tubes...that way when the ocean does rise we'll already be on floatation device's...

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

Nope, it's all hypothetical summation based on whatever they feed into the computer to elicit the "end result".
In other words man made numbers and graphs just like our man made climate change..
Oh we have tree rings and glaciers and core temps for volcanos too but those are too straight forward and factual..

Forget the sun, planetary alignments, inner core temperature of the Earth that is not influenced by our alledged Gases we produce..Earth's temperature depends on the balance between energy entering and leaving the planet’s system... When incoming energy from the sun is absorbed by the Earth system, Earth warms. When the sun’s energy is reflected back into space, Earth avoids warming. When absorbed energy is released back into space, Earth cools...Many factors, both natural and human, can cause changes in Earth’s temperatures but that which is said to be caused by CO2 just isn't confirmed.. Ou sweet Earth knows what to do to keep itself healthy..I mean if we believe she is 4 1/2 billion years old she's done exceptionally well wouldn't you say??

Keep her clean, keep her beautiful, but let her do what she does so well doubg regardless of us humans..

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

Now your going to send people off studying why~~ great plan there CL..

Chocura750

Global warming deniers may find it interesting to visit. www.skepticalscience.com. See what is has to say about your favorite fact or theory you propose for the denial of climate change. There is a section describing an outreach to evangelicals.

Morgan

I'm not trying, I am being selective, not blind, that would be the right in all their denials.

Morgan

You don't need the tubes I'm sure you'll float just fine....

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

Good Morning, Randy, a beautiful day it is... our morning temperatures was 55 but will be going up to 92 so they predict..Then again since they can no more acurately predict today's weather why would we assume all those other calculations are any truer???

Not withstanding the hard evidence of all Gore predicted would happen by now are also farthest from what really went on.. I see he has just advanced the dates convienantly well after most of us will be here..

Need we say anymore??

Morgan

Ah yes we're all communists, as you still have a shrine for Hoover you light a candle to along with your Ayn Rand book for dummies.

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

Yes it's certainly is skeptical~~having seen this site before in checking it out you may wish to use another source...

https://www.masterresource.org/debate-issues/skeptical-science-website/

I was recently informed of a website called “Skeptical Science” run by a Mr. John Cook. As a scientist (physicist), I decided to check it out to see what I could learn. I started with the assumption that Mr. Cook was a competent and well-intentioned person. After some looking around there, here’s what I found out and concluded.

The first red flag is the fact that Science (by definition) is skeptical, so why the repetition in the name? It’s something like naming a site “The attractive fashion model”.

Of more concern is the fact that (c0ntrary to what one might be led to believe by the title) the site is actually focused against skeptical scientists — specifically those who have the temerity to question anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Hmmm.

Mr. Cook says he’s motivated by his young daughter’s future. Great — all the more reason he should want to get it right.

I was fascinated by his site’s supposedly comprehensive list of 119 reasons given by “AGW skeptics,” as well as his rather cursory dismissal of each of these.

For instance, his answer to the consensus matter (#3) is that “97% of climatologists support AGW.” Well that in itself is debatable, but nowhere do I see any discussion that addresses the larger issue: the fact that science is not decided by consensus. What was the consensus of 99% of the “experts” about the solar system in Galileo’s time? Twenty-five years ago what was the consensus of 99% of the “experts” about the cause of ulcers? In both cases (and in many others) 99% of the experts were 100% wrong. That is exactly why science is not decided by consensus.

Another example is item #94: “Over 31,000 scientists signed the OISM Petition Project” and his response is “The ‘OISM petition’ was signed by only a few climatologists.” Maybe I’m missing something, but I thought that this was a scientific matter (remember the website title?). Is he really saying something so elitist as “physicist, chemists, biologists and other scientists are not qualified to assess the scientific legitimacy of AGW”? Apparently so.
<snip> plenty more to read should you wish..

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

It's sheer BS is what it is Dave.. Then again you know this...