Any doubts about Climate Change?

**RPETER65** · 05-09-2016, 09:48 AM

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by RPETER65

you only read what comes from the alarmist

What or who would that be?

Scientific Organizations That Hold the Position That Climate Change Has Been Caused by Human Action;

Thats a lot of alarmists.

BTW Aren't you a creationist? Why are you posting in a thread about science?

https://www.opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

Not to be picky but how many of these institutions are actually involved in the study of climate change and how many are third world country organizations standing to make a fortune selling carbon credits?

**Mr Earl** · 05-09-2016, 09:51 AM

So when is humanty going to quit bowing to money and their enslavement to the corporate masters?

The so called man made climate change issue is a sad distraction from the truly damaging issue facing the planet which is the worship of money above all else.

**Jesus Jones** · 05-09-2016, 09:51 AM

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

^so snubs since there is such a concensus regarding man made climate change, why aren't steps being taken to fix the problem?
Steps like;
petrol rationing, zero emmission mandates, banning the single use plastics industries. Government subsidies for bicycling, bicycle manufacture/maintenance, and promoting renewable industries like hemp/bamboo.
Where are the subsidies for zero emmission vehicles, mass transpotation, eco-friendly agriculture?

These all could come about fairly quickly and would have many healthy side effects right away.

So why aren't these steps being taken right now snuby?

Is it that perhaps all the governments and science involved are actually owned by the globalist corporations and global banking cartels who are contributing to the wholesale destruction of the planet?

Think about it some.....

Like I've said and I'll say again. Far too many preachers doing feck all themselves.

Hypocrites the lot of em'

Purchased than new PC did you? How about upgrading your TV this week sir? Don't forget the Iphone20 is out fool!

These sill twats think it's just the stuff they can see coming out the back-end of a car.

Funny really. HB called me a preper not too long ago because I purchased a Berkey. Ironic considering my footprint is no doubt much smaller than most battyboys on here! One thing I've realized is you can't win with these barstewards. Best just get on with your own life.

**Mr Earl** · 05-09-2016, 10:01 AM

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

Seems like humanity as a whole is either too stupid and/or greedy to take serious steps to solve a rather obvious problem.

It is both Earl.

You're talking to someone who owns not one, not two, but eight vehicles.

That's the kind of specious, sophomoric 'reasoning' you're dealing with when it comes to Earl. Just as bad as any denialist. Maybe even worse since it's such a pointless distraction.

What is exactly specious and sophomoric about zero emmissions and rationing petrol?

What is specious and sophomoric about people mandating that government actually look out for the people rather than being instruments for corporate profits?

The issue is about moving forward and actually doing something, not looking back pointing fingers and being stuck on stupid as you seem to be. Simply stuck on stupid.

Ration petrol, mandate zero emmissions, use hemp and bamboo, move forward not backwards, you fucking idiot.

**bsnub** · 05-09-2016, 10:17 AM

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Not to be picky but how many of these institutions are actually involved in the study of climate change and how many are third world country organizations standing to make a fortune selling carbon credits?

You are the personification of an idiot. Continue to swallow your medicine like a gullible lemming.

**nisakiman** · 05-09-2016, 04:06 PM

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by nisakiman

current 'scientific consensus' (which is actually nothing of the sort, as there are many climatologists who disagree)

Why don't you name all these climatologists who disagree? I challenge you to do it. I dare you.

Another science denier attempted to do it on this thread and failed epically.

I await your response.

“Probably the most widely repeated claim in the debate over global warming is that ‘97% of scientists agree’ that climate change is man-made and dangerous,” the authors write. “This claim is not only false, but its presence in the debate is an insult to science.”
With these words, the authors begin a detailed analysis of one of the most controversial topics of the day. The authors make a compelling case against claims of a scientific consensus. The purported proof of such a consensus consists of sloppy research by nonscientists, college students, and a highly partisan Australian blogger. Surveys of climate scientists, even those heavily biased in favor of climate alarmism, find extensive disagreement on the underlying science and doubts about its reliability.
The authors point to four reasons why scientists disagree about global warming: a conflict among scientists in different and often competing disciplines; fundamental scientific uncertainties concerning how the global climate responds to the human presence; failure of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to provide objective guidance to the complex science; and bias among researchers.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/...lobal-warming/

...............................................

“The ‘97% consensus’ article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [UK] that the energy minister should cite it.”
– Mike Hulme, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia (UEA)

.................................................. .

The most important question in the AMS survey was done in two parts:
“Is global warming happening? If so, what is its cause?”
Respondent options were:

Yes: Mostly human
Yes: Equally human and natural
Yes: Mostly natural
Yes: Insufficient evidence [to determine cause]
Yes: Don’t know cause
Don’t know if global warming is happening
Global warming is not happening

Here’s the kicker:
Just 52 percent of survey respondents answered Yes: Mostly human.
The other 48 percent either questioned whether global warming is happening or would not ascribe human activity as the primary cause.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/...a-real-survey/

...........................

That was just ten minutes spent looking - there's plenty more out there if you care to look - although I realise you don't want to have your belief system questioned, so you'll not be inclined.

With something as complex as climate, the science is never settled, and if you think it is, then you obviously have no faculty for critical thinking.

**nisakiman** · 05-09-2016, 04:18 PM

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Not to be picky but how many of these institutions are actually involved in the study of climate change and how many are third world country organizations standing to make a fortune selling carbon credits?

You are the personification of an idiot. Continue to swallow your medicine like a gullible lemming.

I think that was a very valid question, and far from being idiotic.

I would imagine it is very likely that many, if not most, of those institutions have a vested interest in the continuing scaremongering about climate change. There's a lot of money sloshing around in the AGW funding trough.

Generally speaking, in any debate, when one side starts throwing ad hominems around, it means they are on shaky ground; and you do seem to spend an awful lot of your time telling everyone who disagrees with you how stupid they are.

You seem to forget that the concept of AGW is still theory, not fact. There is no empirical evidence, just a lot of conflicting graphs and computer models.

**Takeovers** · 05-09-2016, 04:28 PM

Originally Posted by nisakiman

You seem to forget that the concept of AGW is still theory, not fact.

Do you understand the concept of a scientific theory? Y/N

The answer is obvious, you don't.

**bsnub** · 05-09-2016, 06:17 PM

Originally Posted by Takeovers

Originally Posted by nisakiman

You seem to forget that the concept of AGW is still theory, not fact.

Do you understand the concept of a scientific theory? Y/N

The answer is obvious, you don't.

It is a prequalifier that they are all so stupid. Quick to post humilfiying junk science. Not one of them can explain what peer review means. Laughable

**Mr Earl** · 05-09-2016, 07:37 PM

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by Takeovers

Originally Posted by nisakiman

You seem to forget that the concept of AGW is still theory, not fact.

Do you understand the concept of a scientific theory? Y/N

The answer is obvious, you don't.

It is a prequalifier that they are all so stupid. Quick to post humilfiying junk science. Not one of them can explain what peer review means. Laughable

I 100% agree we are not only facing a global crisis but we are already neck deep and nearly dead.

So why are global leaders still doing the soft shoe hokie pokie around the issue instead of mandating some serious changes.

I wanna fucking know how you fuckin explain that?

Do not our rights as air breathing human beings deserve an explanation why our governments are poisoning the planet?
Do we not have a right to clean air, or does your motorcar comfort convenience trump human health and wellness?

Well?????

**pulvarien** · 05-09-2016, 08:56 PM

Where I live the climate is wonderful, there is no global warming, no oceans rising, no obvious pollution, no threats nothing. I'm curious where some of you live that were in a crisis, that its obvious and the end times are upon us?

On the site that cannot be mentioned today there are 2 interesting articles amid the others. [climatedepot.com] Top left the measureable land area of the world is actually growing, not shrinking because of oceans rising, details in the article. The 2nd in on the top left under 411, record wheat crops again across the world even tho the global warming scientists who are never wrong predicted a disastrous year, details in the article. Bye the way how can we have record wheat production if the whole world is collapsing around us?

What climatedepot.com does is gather articles from all over to one central place to reveal disturbing facts that the global warmers try to hide, and how they try to deceive us. The extent of the great "left wing conspiracy" is very disturbing if you read climatedepot for just a few weeks. The contradictions in what they say, what they do ie wind power is an ecological disaster, so is ethanol.

The greens scare stories are endless and some are actually true ie elephant/other species under attack. But the sad fact is they do little about the real problems ie animal extinction and what they are doing is trying to gain power, total power, for their own benefit. Science for all its mistakes is our great hope and the greens hold science in contempt, twist it, lie about it, all for their own purposes. If you doubt what I say simply read climatedepot.com for a few weeks and your eyes will start to open. The articles there on politics, science, history etc will reveal the length and breadth of the left wing conspiracy, and it is simply shocking.

**Mr Earl** · 05-09-2016, 09:21 PM

^have you ever been to Los Angeles, or Mexico City, or Beijing, Chiang Mai, NYC, Phuket? The air is toxic beyond imagination, causing unfathomable suffering and death.
Go ride a bicycle past the oil refinery in Richmond, CA and tell me there isn't a problem!

Take a stroll past the PTT oil refinery in Rayong if you dare. Nasty, but not nearly as nasty as the Jersey Shore and part of Africa.

**harrybarracuda** · 05-09-2016, 09:57 PM

Originally Posted by pulvarien

Bye the way how can we have record wheat production if the whole world is collapsing around us?

GMO and new pesticides.

Lots more wheat but your kids will be born with two heads.

**MrG** · 05-09-2016, 10:41 PM

Originally Posted by nisakiman

I would imagine it is very likely that many, if not most, of those institutions have a vested interest in the continuing scaremongering about climate change.

Imagining seems to be all you can do, since providing a cogent argument based on peer reviewed facts escapes you.

**RPETER65** · 05-09-2016, 11:15 PM

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Not to be picky but how many of these institutions are actually involved in the study of climate change and how many are third world country organizations standing to make a fortune selling carbon credits?

You are the personification of an idiot. Continue to swallow your medicine like a gullible lemming.

So you ave no basis to refute my post, just more verbal attacks on the poster. Typical.

**RPETER65** · 05-09-2016, 11:19 PM

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by Takeovers

Originally Posted by nisakiman

You seem to forget that the concept of AGW is still theory, not fact.

Do you understand the concept of a scientific theory? Y/N

The answer is obvious, you don't.

It is a prequalifier that they are all so stupid. Quick to post humilfiying junk science. Not one of them can explain what peer review means. Laughable

You seem to be a bit naive te believe anyone does not understand peer review, the question is, who are these peers.

**MrG** · 05-09-2016, 11:27 PM

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by RPETER65

you only read what comes from the alarmist

What or who would that be?

Scientific Organizations That Hold the Position That Climate Change Has Been Caused by Human Action;

Thats a lot of alarmists.

BTW Aren't you a creationist? Why are you posting in a thread about science?

https://www.opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

Not to be picky but how many of these institutions are actually involved in the study of climate change and how many are third world country organizations standing to make a fortune selling carbon credits?

You seem to think that just because you ask the question everyone should busy themselves providing you with an answer.
Generally people who want to refute another posters posts brings his own research to the table.
Do you have any?
Which of these sites do you have an issue with?
(Those are rhetorical questions--don't strain yourself scrambling for an answer).

FYI

A rhetorical question is a figure of speech in the form of a question that is asked to make a point rather than to elicit an answer. Though classically stated as a proper question, such a rhetorical device may be posed declaratively by implying a question, and therefore may not always require a question mark when written.

Rhetorical question - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

**Neo** · 05-09-2016, 11:58 PM

Originally Posted by Mr Earl

So why are global leaders still doing the soft shoe hokie pokie around the issue instead of mandating some serious changes.

The 'soft shoe hokie pokie' is about right... this from 2 days ago

Breakthrough as US and China agree to ratify Paris climate deal

Campaigners hail key moment in battle against global warming as presidents Obama and Xi announce deal on eve of G20 summit in Hangzhou

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...te-change-deal

The reality though it is possible to calculate how much carbon will be added to the environment from the fossil fuels we will extract in the future. The mining and drilling companies forecast how much they will extract on the short and long term in order to raise capital for investment and maintain their share price and dividend. Those forecasts run contrary to any agreement on carbon reduction, or the 2% warming limit suggested at the Paris summit over 10 years ago. The forecasts and long term trend show extraction, and therefore carbon pollution, is set to increase dramatically with temperatures more likely to be 4% above the mean set in 2005, which will of course be catastrophic.

It is now nearly 25 years since the Kyoto summit and the fossil fuel companies have been raping the planet ever since, and will continue to do so as long as they manipulate the system with their wealth.

**RPETER65** · 06-09-2016, 06:01 AM

Originally Posted by MrG

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by RPETER65

you only read what comes from the alarmist

What or who would that be?

Scientific Organizations That Hold the Position That Climate Change Has Been Caused by Human Action;

Thats a lot of alarmists.

BTW Aren't you a creationist? Why are you posting in a thread about science?

https://www.opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

Not to be picky but how many of these institutions are actually involved in the study of climate change and how many are third world country organizations standing to make a fortune selling carbon credits?

You seem to think that just because you ask the question everyone should busy themselves providing you with an answer.
Generally people who want to refute another posters posts brings his own research to the table.
Do you have any?
Which of these sites do you have an issue with?
(Those are rhetorical questions--don't strain yourself scrambling for an answer).

FYI

A rhetorical question is a figure of speech in the form of a question that is asked to make a point rather than to elicit an answer. Though classically stated as a proper question, such a rhetorical device may be posed declaratively by implying a question, and therefore may not always require a question mark when written.

Rhetorical question - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Save your insults for someone who might actually care, the fact is many of the institutions are from third world countries who stand to gain significant financial gains from carbon credit trading of course they are going to get on the man made global warming bandwagon, just as Al Gore has.

**pulvarien** · 06-09-2016, 06:02 AM

The present level of Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at 1 part in 10,000 is not a problem and if it doubles to 2 in 10,000 it will in all probability not be a problem. Its a green/leftwing/libtard scare story to panic people into surrendering their rights to them. They are the scare story and what they want to do. I will admit some of what they want to do has to be done, but surely not in their way and not with them in control.

Overpopulation, overfishing, species extermination, are all problems and some serious, but carbon dioxide is a total scare story and a joke. The problems must be handled honestly and openly and the greens/leftists are not the solution but another whole problem, because the greens are not very green any more, they are watermelon green, meaning slice it open and they are red.

**bsnub** · 06-09-2016, 06:08 AM

Originally Posted by RPETER65

So you ave no basis to refute my post, just more verbal attacks on the poster. Typical.

Because you have no facts to back up your absurd accusation. It is tin foil conspiracy theory that is not rooted in reality.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

You seem to be a bit naive te believe anyone does not understand peer review

You and most of the other science deniers have proven over and over that you dont understand peer review or you would not continue to post the discredited junk science that you post and believe to be true.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

the question is, who are these peers.

That is not in question to anyone who understands how the peer review process works. It is 100% transparent nothing is hidden.

Q. How do I find peer-reviewed or scholarly articles? - LibAnswers

https://scholar.google.com/

It really doesn't matter anyway you will continue to swallow the propaganda that your right wing blogs keep spoon feeding you. It really is a waste of my time to try and educate you because your ignorance is seemingly boundless.

**pulvarien** · 06-09-2016, 06:25 AM

It seems something funny is goin on in the arctic, under yes under Climatedepot.com on the right under 411 is a story about arctic ice! It seems there's an explosion of growth, yes the impossible is happening. This explosion hopefully is just an aberration because if its real then it may be a sign of something bad happening.

The amount of ice growth listed on the cryosphere today is actually scary.

**bsnub** · 06-09-2016, 06:37 AM

Originally Posted by pulvarien

It seems something funny is goin on in the arctic, under yes under Climatedepot.com on the right under 411 is a story about arctic ice! It seems there's an explosion of growth, yes the impossible is happening.

You hopeless lemming. The sea ice is not growing, you continue to embarrass yourself by posting snippets from that comically stupid website that is funded by Exxon mobile.

The reality;

Late summer in the Arctic, sea ice melt continues

As of August 14, Arctic sea ice extent is tracking third lowest in the satellite record. The southern route through the Northwest Passage appears to be largely free of ice. Despite a rather diffuse ice cover in the Chukchi Sea, it is unlikely that Arctic sea ice extent this September will fall below the record minimum set in 2012.

As of August 14, Arctic sea ice extent was 5.61 million square kilometers (2.17 million square miles). This is the third lowest extent in the satellite record for this date and slightly below the two standard deviation range. So far this month the rate of loss has been faster than average and has declined at a rate similar to that observed for 2012.

Ice loss has progressed quite rapidly in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas, where broken up ice floes are starting to melt away. However, large, thick multiyear ice floes persist in several areas; it remains to be seen if they will survive the melt season. A wedge of open water has also penetrated northward from the East Siberian Sea, yet ice remains extensive in the Laptev Sea, blocking the Northern Sea Route. Ice extent continues to be low in the Kara, Barents, and East Greenland seas. The southern (Amundsen’s) route through the Northwest Passage appears open in Advanced Scanning Microwave Radiometer 2 (AMSR2) data. However, data in visible wavelengths from the NASA Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) instrument still show some ice.

The Arctic atmosphere is cooling now as the sun dips lower in the sky. However, sea ice loss will continue throughout August due primarily to melt from the ocean heat that has accumulated over the summer. Early ice retreat has allowed the ocean to warm, both from absorption of the sun’s energy and from northward-flowing warm water in the Chukchi Sea to the west of Alaska and in the Barents Sea to the north of Norway. Unusually strong ocean warming occurred in northern Baffin Bay (between northern Canada and Greenland), the Beaufort Sea (north of northwestern Canada and Alaska), the East Siberian Sea (north of far eastern Siberia), and the Barents and Kara seas (north of western Eurasia).

What is quite unusual this year is the early ice retreat and resulting ocean warming in the western Beaufort Sea and in the western East Siberian Sea. The extent of warming to the north of these two seas is also unusual, as well as the extent of this warming to the north. These two areas typically melt out later in the season, when atmospheric heating rates have declined from their mid-summer peak. Thus the exposed ocean warms, but not all that much. This pattern was true during the record-setting year of 2012, when by the end of summer, these areas were substantially cooler than surrounding seas that had melted out earlier.
This year, however, the melt out was early and extensive enough that the ocean has already warmed substantially in these two areas. More sea ice retreat is probable in the western Beaufort and East Siberian seas as well as areas in the coming weeks. But what about the ocean’s response? Some warm water might move northward via ocean currents and contribute to ice melt. However, further dramatic ocean surface warming is unlikely, given that the atmosphere is already cooling, especially in far northern latitudes.

**RPETER65** · 06-09-2016, 06:54 AM

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by RPETER65

So you ave no basis to refute my post, just more verbal attacks on the poster. Typical.

Because you have no facts to back up your absurd accusation. It is tin foil conspiracy theory that is not rooted in reality.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

You seem to be a bit naive te believe anyone does not understand peer review

You and most of the other science deniers have proven over and over that you dont understand peer review or you would not continue to post the discredited junk science that you post and believe to be true.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

the question is, who are these peers.

That is not in question to anyone who understands how the peer review process works. It is 100% transparent nothing is hidden.

Q. How do I find peer-reviewed or scholarly articles? - LibAnswers

https://scholar.google.com/

It really doesn't matter anyway you will continue to swallow the propaganda that your right wing blogs keep spoon feeding you. It really is a waste of my time to try and educate you because your ignorance is seemingly boundless.

If you believe the third world country institutions in the list you supplied are not motivated by carbon credit money you are beyond moronic.

**bsnub** · 06-09-2016, 07:04 AM

^ Nice side step. You needed to shift gears because I utterly destroyed you in the last post as I have countless times in this thread yet you keep coming back for more humiliation. You are in no position to call anyone moronic. I strongly suggest you look at yourself and your posts. When you do look in the mirror and you will see who the moron is.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

If you believe the third world country institutions in the list you supplied are not motivated by carbon credit money

Tin foil bullshit. Another absurd accusation that you can in no way come close to proving.

Thread: Any doubts about Climate Change?

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions