Interesting Book, and Thoughts for You Climate Change Deniers.
Apr 19, 2019 20:45:25 #
Apr 19, 2019 22:38:30 #
Richard94611 wrote:
One of the recurring themes climate change deniers... (show quote)
I don’t deny climate change. That’s a normal state of affairs. Read a book, “Sarum”
Began with the end of an ice age. No matter what we do, the climate will change.
Don’t mess with Mothe Nature.
Apr 23, 2019 11:13:09 #
Carol Kelly wrote:
I don’t deny climate change. That’s a normal state of affairs. Read a book, “Sarum”
Began with the end of an ice age. No matter what we do, the climate will change.
Don’t mess with Mothe Nature.
Began with the end of an ice age. No matter what we do, the climate will change.
Don’t mess with Mothe Nature.
It is the Man Made CO2 BS that is ludicrous.
Al Gore was looking for another tax.
AND
He was ready to collect.
Apr 25, 2019 07:54:08 #
Carol Kelly wrote:
I don’t deny climate change. That’s a normal state of affairs. Read a book, “Sarum”
Began with the end of an ice age. No matter what we do, the climate will change.
Don’t mess with Mothe Nature.
Began with the end of an ice age. No matter what we do, the climate will change.
Don’t mess with Mothe Nature.
Apr 25, 2019 11:43:02 #
Carol Kelly wrote:
I don’t deny climate change. That’s a normal state of affairs. Read a book, “Sarum”
Began with the end of an ice age. No matter what we do, the climate will change.
Don’t mess with Mothe Nature.
Began with the end of an ice age. No matter what we do, the climate will change.
Don’t mess with Mothe Nature.
It is cycling of all of mother Nature that allows nature to self correct.
Democrat fleas will not change that.
Apr 26, 2019 20:13:22 #
Explain to us, please, what is ludicrous about the belief that man-made CO2 is the primary cause of present-day climate change.
eagleye13 wrote:
It is the Man Made CO2 BS that is ludicrous.
Al Gore was looking for another tax.
AND
He was ready to collect.
Al Gore was looking for another tax.
AND
He was ready to collect.
Apr 26, 2019 20:15:25 #
What is the point of your nonsensical post ? Yes, nature may very well self-corrent, but this will take millions of years. Mars once had rivers and a lot of geological features and actiuvity that disappeared. That hasn't self-corrected recently. Will the earth be any different ?
eagleye13 wrote:
It is cycling of all of mother Nature that allows nature to self correct.
Democrat fleas will not change that.
Democrat fleas will not change that.
Apr 26, 2019 20:22:50 #
Yes, Carol, climate change over long periods of time has aoccurred in the past and will occur in the future.
But you are missing the point. Mankind was not then on this earth or at least not in significant numbers.
New York City and Maimi didn't exist then as populated centers. Nobody was around to care if these places and the human homes in them became inundated or not because there were no human homes in them. That's what is different now. For an idea of what a small, short climate change episode can do, read Nature's Mutiny. We are headed for something much greater, much more long-lastring, and much more adverse to mankind than the cooling described in the book. And the point of the book is that when climate changes, it affects mankind in numerous ways. Just ask yourself what the economic repercussions throughout the world are going to be if the climate warms sufficiently to reduce corn yields by 50% in the middle of this country. What will happen to corn prices ? Who in the world will be unable to afford food and will die because of this. The world is a lot more complicated than I believe you want to consider it.
But you are missing the point. Mankind was not then on this earth or at least not in significant numbers.
New York City and Maimi didn't exist then as populated centers. Nobody was around to care if these places and the human homes in them became inundated or not because there were no human homes in them. That's what is different now. For an idea of what a small, short climate change episode can do, read Nature's Mutiny. We are headed for something much greater, much more long-lastring, and much more adverse to mankind than the cooling described in the book. And the point of the book is that when climate changes, it affects mankind in numerous ways. Just ask yourself what the economic repercussions throughout the world are going to be if the climate warms sufficiently to reduce corn yields by 50% in the middle of this country. What will happen to corn prices ? Who in the world will be unable to afford food and will die because of this. The world is a lot more complicated than I believe you want to consider it.
Carol Kelly wrote:
I don’t deny climate change. That’s a normal state of affairs. Read a book, “Sarum”
Began with the end of an ice age. No matter what we do, the climate will change.
Don’t mess with Mothe Nature.
Began with the end of an ice age. No matter what we do, the climate will change.
Don’t mess with Mothe Nature.
Apr 26, 2019 20:34:20 #
Richard94611 wrote:
Explain to us, please, what is ludicrous about the belief that man-made CO2 is the primary cause of present-day climate change.
"Explain to us, please, what is ludicrous about the belief that man-made CO2 is the primary cause of present-day climate change." - Richard94611
Richard94611; You must be unaware that I agree that Man Made Climate Change is ludicrous.
I have written in detail on that many times.
Going after CO2 is the epitome of BS.
Basic biology.
Apr 26, 2019 20:54:57 #
Richard94611 wrote:
Explain to us, please, what is ludicrous about the belief that man-made CO2 is the primary cause of present-day climate change.
This thread you started has generated 99 posts and has been viewed 1164 times. Might want to think about that.
12 years ago the Guru of Global Warming set his Doomsday countdown clock at ten years. Now, the Airhead O Cortez says we have 12 years. So how much time do we really have left before the earth gets so hot all life will die?
Apr 26, 2019 21:00:18 #
Blade_Runner wrote:
This thread you started has generated 99 posts and has been viewed 1164 times. Might want to think about that.
12 years ago the Guru of Global Warming set his Doomsday countdown clock at ten years. Now, the Airhead O Cortez says we have 12 years. So how much time do we really have left before the earth gets so hot all life will die?
12 years ago the Guru of Global Warming set his Doomsday countdown clock at ten years. Now, the Airhead O Cortez says we have 12 years. So how much time do we really have left before the earth gets so hot all life will die?
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.
Apr 26, 2019 21:00:44 #
Global Warming; Alias Climate Change
http://www.skepticalscience.com/OISM-Petition-Project.htm
Over 31,000 scientists signed the OISM Petition Project
The Petition Project features over 31,000 scientists signing the petition stating "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere". (OISM)
There are several claims that large numbers of scientists do not agree with the theory of climate change, the best known of which is a petition organised by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (the OISM petition). This petition now appears to be signed by over 32,000 people with a BSc or higher qualification. The signatories agree with these statements:
• The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
• There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.
No evidence has ever been offered to support the first statement, and the second statement is in flat contradiction with the scientists who study climate change. There are also valid issues regarding the methodology:
• The organisers have never revealed how many people they canvassed (so the response rate is unknown) nor have they revealed the sampling methodology, an ironic omission considering how much fuss is made about scientists being candid and making public their methods and data.
• The petition is, in terms of climate change science, rather out of date.
That’s only the tip of the “melting” iceberg of scams the IPCC is involved in using the greatest scamster of all, Al Gore, as their figurehead who then makes squillions insider-trading carbon credits through his own bank of carbon credit companies.
The scam will continue as long as people like Bob Brown can beguile opportunistic crooks like Julia Gillard.
The IPCC rejects any report that doesn’t claim anthropogenic warming, and always throws in a few goodies like its recently discredited, “the Himalayas will soon be devoid of snow” nonsense.
Figures are massaged, graphs are inverted and reports are altered in an attempt to convince the gullible of their expertise in “climate science”. “Climate” can be a science but these charlatans are certainly not scientists!
Long lunches are spent inventing emotive doomsday phrases designed for you to elect Green-sympathetic governments, like Julia Gillard’s, that will happily give them billions more of your taxes.
There is no global warming, it would be good if there was, but both ice-caps have increased in area, Europe and the US have just recorded three years of record cold conditions, atmospheric CO2 levels have continued to vary by the normal 0.1 per cent, US “Tornado Alley” had 30 per cent fewer tornados last season, there are no tidal increases anywhere and the climate is still changing normally in its own erratic way, as it always has.
The only regulators of the world’s CO2 levels, the oceans, the sun and volcanos, are the only regulators IPCC reports don’t account for.
Thank God the Abbott Government only pays lip service to this global warming myth.
Reading between their lines you can see they don’t have their hearts in it.”
NASA is not sending rockets to the moon anymore. The front page on their website is a graph about global warming. When did NASA switch from space research/travel to progressive propaganda? Was the Obama Administration the one who changed the purpose of NASA?
In an article here, former NASA Director Charles Bolden says that Obama told him that Muslim Outreach was his priority, “… inspire children to learn math and science, expand international relationships and “perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science … and math and engineering.”
NASA lists the IPCC as one of its scientific sources proving human-caused global warming. Knowing that the IPCC is a phony organization makes the entire website and NASA itself untrustworthy and irrelevant.
In conclusion,
“The CO2-induced global warming extinction hypothesis claims that as the world warms in response to the ongoing rise in the air’s CO2 content, many species of plants and animals will not be able to migrate either poleward in latitude or upward in elevation fast enough to avoid extinction as they try to escape the stress imposed by the rising temperature. With respect to plants, however, we have shown that as long as the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration rises in tandem with its temperature, most of them will not “feel the heat,” as their physiology will change in ways that make them better adapted to warmer conditions. Hence, although earth’s plants will likely spread poleward and upward at the cold-limited boundaries of their ranges in response to a warming-induced opportunity to do so, their heat-limited boundaries will probably remain pretty much as they are now or shift only slightly.
Consequently, in a world of rising atmospheric CO2 concentration, the ranges of most of earth’s plants will likely expand if the planet continues to warm, making plant extinctions even less likely than they are currently.
Animals should react much the same way. In response to concurrent increases in atmospheric temperature and CO2 concentration, they will likely migrate poleward and upward, where cold temperatures prevented them from going in the past, as they follow earth’s plants. Also as with earth’s plants, the heat-limited boundaries of their ranges should in many cases be little affected, as has been observed in several of the real-world studies that have been wrongly cited as providing evidence for impending species extinctions, or their entire ranges may simply shift with the rising temperature, as has been observed in many real-world studies of marine ecosystems.
To summarize, both theory and observation paint the same picture. A goodly portion of earth’s plants and animals should actually expand their ranges and gain a stronger foothold on the planet as the atmosphere’s temperature and CO2 concentration continue to rise. If the air’s CO2 content were suddenly to stop increasing, however, the biosphere could find itself facing a significant challenge, as the world’s plants would cease acquiring the extra physiological protection against heat stress that is afforded them by rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Consequently, the end result of curtailing anthropogenic CO2 emissions might well be just the opposite of what many people are hoping to accomplish by encouraging that policy, i.e., many species might actually be driven to extinction, rather than being saved from such a fate.”
http://www.skepticalscience.com/OISM-Petition-Project.htm
Over 31,000 scientists signed the OISM Petition Project
The Petition Project features over 31,000 scientists signing the petition stating "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere". (OISM)
There are several claims that large numbers of scientists do not agree with the theory of climate change, the best known of which is a petition organised by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (the OISM petition). This petition now appears to be signed by over 32,000 people with a BSc or higher qualification. The signatories agree with these statements:
• The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
• There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.
No evidence has ever been offered to support the first statement, and the second statement is in flat contradiction with the scientists who study climate change. There are also valid issues regarding the methodology:
• The organisers have never revealed how many people they canvassed (so the response rate is unknown) nor have they revealed the sampling methodology, an ironic omission considering how much fuss is made about scientists being candid and making public their methods and data.
• The petition is, in terms of climate change science, rather out of date.
That’s only the tip of the “melting” iceberg of scams the IPCC is involved in using the greatest scamster of all, Al Gore, as their figurehead who then makes squillions insider-trading carbon credits through his own bank of carbon credit companies.
The scam will continue as long as people like Bob Brown can beguile opportunistic crooks like Julia Gillard.
The IPCC rejects any report that doesn’t claim anthropogenic warming, and always throws in a few goodies like its recently discredited, “the Himalayas will soon be devoid of snow” nonsense.
Figures are massaged, graphs are inverted and reports are altered in an attempt to convince the gullible of their expertise in “climate science”. “Climate” can be a science but these charlatans are certainly not scientists!
Long lunches are spent inventing emotive doomsday phrases designed for you to elect Green-sympathetic governments, like Julia Gillard’s, that will happily give them billions more of your taxes.
There is no global warming, it would be good if there was, but both ice-caps have increased in area, Europe and the US have just recorded three years of record cold conditions, atmospheric CO2 levels have continued to vary by the normal 0.1 per cent, US “Tornado Alley” had 30 per cent fewer tornados last season, there are no tidal increases anywhere and the climate is still changing normally in its own erratic way, as it always has.
The only regulators of the world’s CO2 levels, the oceans, the sun and volcanos, are the only regulators IPCC reports don’t account for.
Thank God the Abbott Government only pays lip service to this global warming myth.
Reading between their lines you can see they don’t have their hearts in it.”
NASA is not sending rockets to the moon anymore. The front page on their website is a graph about global warming. When did NASA switch from space research/travel to progressive propaganda? Was the Obama Administration the one who changed the purpose of NASA?
In an article here, former NASA Director Charles Bolden says that Obama told him that Muslim Outreach was his priority, “… inspire children to learn math and science, expand international relationships and “perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science … and math and engineering.”
NASA lists the IPCC as one of its scientific sources proving human-caused global warming. Knowing that the IPCC is a phony organization makes the entire website and NASA itself untrustworthy and irrelevant.
In conclusion,
“The CO2-induced global warming extinction hypothesis claims that as the world warms in response to the ongoing rise in the air’s CO2 content, many species of plants and animals will not be able to migrate either poleward in latitude or upward in elevation fast enough to avoid extinction as they try to escape the stress imposed by the rising temperature. With respect to plants, however, we have shown that as long as the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration rises in tandem with its temperature, most of them will not “feel the heat,” as their physiology will change in ways that make them better adapted to warmer conditions. Hence, although earth’s plants will likely spread poleward and upward at the cold-limited boundaries of their ranges in response to a warming-induced opportunity to do so, their heat-limited boundaries will probably remain pretty much as they are now or shift only slightly.
Consequently, in a world of rising atmospheric CO2 concentration, the ranges of most of earth’s plants will likely expand if the planet continues to warm, making plant extinctions even less likely than they are currently.
Animals should react much the same way. In response to concurrent increases in atmospheric temperature and CO2 concentration, they will likely migrate poleward and upward, where cold temperatures prevented them from going in the past, as they follow earth’s plants. Also as with earth’s plants, the heat-limited boundaries of their ranges should in many cases be little affected, as has been observed in several of the real-world studies that have been wrongly cited as providing evidence for impending species extinctions, or their entire ranges may simply shift with the rising temperature, as has been observed in many real-world studies of marine ecosystems.
To summarize, both theory and observation paint the same picture. A goodly portion of earth’s plants and animals should actually expand their ranges and gain a stronger foothold on the planet as the atmosphere’s temperature and CO2 concentration continue to rise. If the air’s CO2 content were suddenly to stop increasing, however, the biosphere could find itself facing a significant challenge, as the world’s plants would cease acquiring the extra physiological protection against heat stress that is afforded them by rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Consequently, the end result of curtailing anthropogenic CO2 emissions might well be just the opposite of what many people are hoping to accomplish by encouraging that policy, i.e., many species might actually be driven to extinction, rather than being saved from such a fate.”
Apr 26, 2019 21:03:41 #
The great global warming swindle - Full version
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtevF4B4RtQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player
GLOBAL WARMING IS A HOAX
Lenar Whitney
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BzItCPk5j4#t=254
Dr Don Easterbrook Exposes Climate Change Hoax
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LkMweOVOOI#t=40
How the Global Warming Scare Began
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyUDGfCNC-k#t=45
NYT: Scientists 'Startled' at Great Lakes' Rise; Another Warmist Prediction Is Biting the Dust
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2014/06/30/nyt-scientists-startled-great-lakes-ri...
Al Gore's Inconvenient SCAM, Lies versus Lord Monckton Truth and Logic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElEwhE7B-8o#t=309
5 Scientific Reasons That Global Warming Isn't Happening
http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2014/02/18/5-scientific-reasons-that-global-wa...
Charles Krauthammer Destroys Global Warming Myths in 89 Seconds
http://blog.heritage.org/2014/02/18/charles-krauthammer-destroys-global-warming-myths-89-...
California’s Man-Made Drought – Dick Morris TV: Lunch Alert!
http://www.dickmorris.com/californias-man-made-drought-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/?utm_so...
All Fools' Eve 2014: The day democracy died
http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/all-fools-eve-2014-the-day-democracy-died/#Cp4c2gdIJ3deSZYh.99
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtevF4B4RtQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player
GLOBAL WARMING IS A HOAX
Lenar Whitney
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BzItCPk5j4#t=254
Dr Don Easterbrook Exposes Climate Change Hoax
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LkMweOVOOI#t=40
How the Global Warming Scare Began
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyUDGfCNC-k#t=45
NYT: Scientists 'Startled' at Great Lakes' Rise; Another Warmist Prediction Is Biting the Dust
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2014/06/30/nyt-scientists-startled-great-lakes-ri...
Al Gore's Inconvenient SCAM, Lies versus Lord Monckton Truth and Logic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElEwhE7B-8o#t=309
5 Scientific Reasons That Global Warming Isn't Happening
http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2014/02/18/5-scientific-reasons-that-global-wa...
Charles Krauthammer Destroys Global Warming Myths in 89 Seconds
http://blog.heritage.org/2014/02/18/charles-krauthammer-destroys-global-warming-myths-89-...
California’s Man-Made Drought – Dick Morris TV: Lunch Alert!
http://www.dickmorris.com/californias-man-made-drought-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/?utm_so...
All Fools' Eve 2014: The day democracy died
http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/all-fools-eve-2014-the-day-democracy-died/#Cp4c2gdIJ3deSZYh.99
Apr 26, 2019 21:07:52 #
Just watch this one video!
California’s Man-Made Drought – Dick Morris TV: Lunch Alert!
http://www.dickmorris.com/californias-man-made-drought-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/?utm_so...
California’s Man-Made Drought – Dick Morris TV: Lunch Alert!
http://www.dickmorris.com/californias-man-made-drought-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/?utm_so...
Apr 26, 2019 21:51:51 #
Of course I am aware of that, but you have failed to explain why it is “ludicrous.”
eagleye13 wrote:
"Explain to us, please, what is ludicrous about the belief that man-made CO2 is the primary cause of present-day climate change." - Richard94611
Richard94611; You must be unaware that I agree that Man Made Climate Change is ludicrous.
I have written in detail on that many times.
Going after CO2 is the epitome of BS.
Basic biology.
Richard94611; You must be unaware that I agree that Man Made Climate Change is ludicrous.
I have written in detail on that many times.
Going after CO2 is the epitome of BS.
Basic biology.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.