Thread: Any doubts about Climate Change?

Yawn - so again, please tell us all what you and your powerful climate scam friends are doing about it? What should be done? All we hear all the time is endless "the science is settled" like a broken record, and all they can do is tax people and pocket the cash.

Rather than waste youe heroic time on here bashing people who have not fallen for the scam that you have, mybe it is better invested asking the powers that be what they can do?

Or is this just a trip for you to feel condescending and virtuous?

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Yawn - so again, please tell us all what you and your powerful climate scam friends are doing about it? What should be done? All we hear all the time is endless "the science is settled" like a broken record, and all they can do is tax people and pocket the cash.

Rather than waste youe heroic time on here bashing people who have not fallen for the scam that you have, mybe it is better invested asking the powers that be what they can do?

Or is this just a trip for you to feel condescending and virtuous?

Personally, I'm on pins & needles breathlessly awaiting the news of Earth's perfect temperature. That pesky thing - too cold/hot - polar bears drowning, spotted owls dropping out of the trees, dolphins beaching themselves. It's all very confusing...

Originally Posted by MrG

^
Fascinating.

I know it's pointless to ask, but do you have any references for this ummmm..."theory?"

The basic theory is called Herndon's Geodynamic theory.

Try this website for a layman's explanation or Google the above title.

http://www.nuclearplanets.com/Hendon...odynamics.html

If the link doesn't work, try another.

How Hendon's theory supports other climatic data is still being debated, but I tend to think he's closer tonthe truth of plate tectonics, magma spread, uplift and seismics than anyone else so far.

For instance, geologists have yet to explain the great floods of Egypt, where water covered the land for thousands of years cutting into the base of the shinx. Neither have current geological theories explained how Lake Titikcaca (sp?) was formed to contain Pacific ocean moluscs and sea horses and wharves large enough for ocean going ships.

The explanation so far is that the Andean uplift occurred some 10 million years ago.

Hendon's theory could possibly explain that the uplift occurred recently and rapidly, not gradually, over thousands of years, 10 million yrs ago.

Originally Posted by TonyBKK

Originally Posted by Neverna

I have no doubt that climate change has been going on for thousands or millions of years. There have been ice ages in the past. We're not in an ice age now so the climate must have changed. I believe it's normal and natural and not related to carbon emissions.

Like many climate change denialists, what you believe, has no basis in fact...

I'm happy to be educated.

What emitted carbon 2 million years ago that caused climate change?

What caused the change from ice age to non ice age and back again?

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Yawn - so again, please tell us all what you and your powerful climate scam friends are doing about it? What should be done? All we hear all the time is endless "the science is settled" like a broken record, and all they can do is tax people and pocket the cash.

Rather than waste youe heroic time on here bashing people who have not fallen for the scam that you have, mybe it is better invested asking the powers that be what they can do?

Or is this just a trip for you to feel condescending and virtuous?

Personally, I'm on pins & needles breathlessly awaiting the news of Earth's perfect temperature. That pesky thing - too cold/hot - polar bears drowning, spotted owls dropping out of the trees, dolphins beaching themselves. It's all very confusing...

Instead of living in denial and looking like idiots you fellas could take a moment to educate yourselves on the topic.

Here's a nice place to start- simple english and lots of pictures since you're clearly not yet ready for anything more complex:

Home | Climate Change | US EPA

Originally Posted by Neverna

'm happy to be educated. What emitted carbon 2 million years ago that caused climate change? What caused the change from ice age to non ice age and back again?

Oh don't start all that. We are going to be in a blizzard of computer model graphs and guesses of data from 1958 onwards to answer what happened 2 million years ago, and be expected accept it as fact because Al Gore and the cool camp say so. After all, Al Gore is so trust worthy...

Originally Posted by Neverna

Originally Posted by TonyBKK

Originally Posted by Neverna

I have no doubt that climate change has been going on for thousands or millions of years. There have been ice ages in the past. We're not in an ice age now so the climate must have changed. I believe it's normal and natural and not related to carbon emissions.

Like many climate change denialists, what you believe, has no basis in fact...

I'm happy to be educated.

What emitted carbon 2 million years ago that caused climate change?

What caused the change from ice age to non ice age and back again?

Freddy Flintstone's car.

The link to Herndon's site is,


Herndon's Geodynamics


not as it appears in my previous post.

Originally Posted by Neverna

Originally Posted by TonyBKK

Originally Posted by Neverna

I have no doubt that climate change has been going on for thousands or millions of years. There have been ice ages in the past. We're not in an ice age now so the climate must have changed. I believe it's normal and natural and not related to carbon emissions.

Like many climate change denialists, what you believe, has no basis in fact...

I'm happy to be educated.

What emitted carbon 2 million years ago that caused climate change?

What caused the change from ice age to non ice age and back again?

Your considerations are pointless. The next glaciation is due in about 50,000 years, and will be caused like the previous ones by slight changes of earth's orbit round the sun, the Milankovich cycles. Greenhouse gases are the only factor changing the climate right now. We release about 40 billion tonnes of CO2 into the athmosphere per year, that's an awful lot producing the highest CO2 level and temperatures in 4 million years.

Originally Posted by ENT

Originally Posted by MrG

^
Fascinating.

I know it's pointless to ask, but do you have any references for this ummmm..."theory?"

The basic theory is called Herndon's Geodynamic theory.

Try this website for a layman's explanation or Google the above title.

http://www.nuclearplanets.com/Hendon's%20Geodynamics.html

If the link doesn't work, try another.

How Hendon's theory supports other climatic data is still being debated, but I tend to think he's closer tonthe truth of plate tectonics, magma spread, uplift and seismics than anyone else so far.

For instance, geologists have yet to explain the great floods of Egypt, where water covered the land for thousands of years cutting into the base of the shinx. Neither have current geological theories explained how Lake Titikcaca (sp?) was formed to contain Pacific ocean moluscs and sea horses and wharves large enough for ocean going ships.

The explanation so far is that the Andean uplift occurred some 10 million years ago.

Hendon's theory could possibly explain that the uplift occurred recently and rapidly, not gradually, over thousands of years, 10 million yrs ago.

I checked out your link and all I can say is damn, I've been had once again.
Nothing...not a word on global warming, just his thories on the origin of the earth, plate tectonics and other theories. Nothing on climate change or global warming.

You say his climatic data is being investigated. What data? Investigated by whom?

Please don't waste my time by responding with any more information beamed in on your tin hat.

And there's me thinking that you were a gentleman and a scholar, but no, your just another rude, cliche ridden oaf who's too lazy to do his own thinking by putting two and two together!

Never mind, you get that, eh.

The theory presented obviously meant little to your tiny mind, but some might begin to see that it explains how internally generated heat coming from earth's core is a greater driver of surface temperatures on earth as well as the atmosphere than once thought.

This source of heat adds another component to the puzzle of climate change as displayed in El Nino and La Nina cycles, which are central engines of air and ocean cycles affecting our weather as manifested in the phenomenon now regardedcas climate change.

You could, of course, dispute this contention and maybe even come up with your own theory on climate change, which, if logically founded could be of earth shattering import, but somehow, I doubt it.

Meanwhile, you could just stick to political jingoism and strange fiscal theories to explain what climate change is all about, that might be more on your level.

Came across this sentence today in a book I'm reading by VADM (ret) Melvin Williams, Jr and his dad MCPO (ret) Melvin Williams, Sr:

"Because of probable global climate changes, the Arctic is now of increased strategic importance".

I'd say that's a pretty significant admission coming from a man quite high in the US Navy hierarchy and a former SSBN Commanding Officer. First black man to ever command a SSBN by the way. He retired in 2010.

One thing you have to remember about the religious right, there was a time when they denied the earth was round.

Don't expect them to believe or even understand rational thought or science any time soon. Until then you can't have any rational debate on the subject of climate change.

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Came across this sentence today in a book I'm reading by VADM (ret) Melvin Williams, Jr and his dad MCPO (ret) Melvin Williams, Sr:

"Because of probable global climate changes, the Arctic is now of increased strategic importance".

I'd say that's a pretty significant admission coming from a man quite high in the US Navy hierarchy and a former SSBN Commanding Officer. First black man to ever command a SSBN by the way. He retired in 2010.

I wouldn't at all be surprised if big oil are melting the ice caps oooop north somehow to make it easier to get to the oil.

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Came across this sentence today in a book I'm reading by VADM (ret) Melvin Williams, Jr and his dad MCPO (ret) Melvin Williams, Sr:

"Because of probable global climate changes, the Arctic is now of increased strategic importance".

I'd say that's a pretty significant admission coming from a man quite high in the US Navy hierarchy and a former SSBN Commanding Officer. First black man to ever command a SSBN by the way. He retired in 2010.

I wouldn't at all be surprised if big oil are melting the ice caps oooop north somehow to make it easier to get to the oil.

No need

Fracking in N. Dakota, OK & Texas is producing mucho oil these days...

And I could have sworn that Romney told us Obama was holding it all up.

Originally Posted by pseudolus

I wouldn't at all be surprised if big oil are melting the ice caps oooop north somehow to make it easier to get to the oil.

No silly, it's your pal Alex Jones' shape shifting Illuminati lizard people who are responsible!

Diddums Tony - are you feeling very cool and clever now?
Well, Alex Jones does not agree with David Icke about lizard people. So half of your nonsense is, unlike a lot of Jones's, is made up bullshit.

Are you religious tony? Believe in God? Baby Jesus? I know you won't answer because you are one of the "hurl abuse at everyone, try to ridicule people but NEVER EVER say what you think about a topic or subject" breed of posters. AKA Trolls.

Oh, and fracking is fundamentally horrendous.



How is that for a conspiracy theory? Letterman is a fuckwit loon bag crazy i guess as well?

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Oh, and fracking is fundamentally horrendous.



How is that for a conspiracy theory? Letterman is a fuckwit loon bag crazy i guess as well?

Far from it. Letterman is not a Climate Change denier (only fuckwit loon bag crazy people are, as you put it). As you can see in the video (in this link: James Hansen On Letterman - December 10, 2009 Video)

Dr. Hansen was out pushing his book (good book by the way) and trying to bring awareness to the subject while on Letterman.

If you know anything about Dr. Hansen you’ll understand he (like me, as I remember) is against carbon offsets. One of your big pet peeves (I think).

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Originally Posted by Neverna

'm happy to be educated. What emitted carbon 2 million years ago that caused climate change? What caused the change from ice age to non ice age and back again?

Oh don't start all that. We are going to be in a blizzard of computer model graphs and guesses of data from 1958 onwards to answer what happened 2 million years ago, and be expected accept it as fact because Al Gore and the cool camp say so. After all, Al Gore is so trust worthy...

So was Herr Becher until that Phlogiston Theory of his blew up in his face!

Oh, not to forget the 'lauded' Soviet Lamarckism Evolutionary Theory too!

TrollBKK - You ridecule someone for their beliefs, and yet you hide your own. likely that you do believe in od and baby jesus, which just as ridiculous as lizard men.

S Lambeth - I don't think anyone in the world does not believe in climate change. What is there not to believe in? the climate changes. Fact. So don't be such a woopsy. Now, if you want to argue the toss about MMGW which you don't use after 12 years of cooling, feel free. If you want to comment on the WE'r e going to die from global cooling headlines a few decades agin, feel free. But please resist thinking you are smart and clever by using the phrase Climate Change - It means the climate changes. In actual fact, you seem to not believe in climate Change and only in man made global warming. Maybe you are the retarded conspiracy theorist loon nutbag?

Nothing will happen. Nothing will change. It is all a ruse to keep seemingly intelligent people having shit fights whilst the world owners rape more money from the people.

Originally Posted by pseudolus

S Lambeth - I don't think anyone in the world does not believe in climate change. What is there not to believe in? the climate changes. Fact. So don't be such a woopsy. Now, if you want to argue the toss about MMGW which you don't use after 12 years of cooling, feel free. If you want to comment on the WE'r e going to die from global cooling headlines a few decades agin, feel free. But please resist thinking you are smart and clever by using the phrase Climate Change - It means the climate changes. In actual fact, you seem to not believe in climate Change and only in man made global warming. Maybe you are the retarded conspiracy theorist loon nutbag?

Nothing will happen. Nothing will change. It is all a ruse to keep seemingly intelligent people having shit fights whilst the world owners rape more money from the people.

so which one are you?

10% believe US agencies intentionally created the AIDS epidemic and 15% believe that the evidence for a link between second-hand cigarette smoke and ill-health has been invented by a corrupt cartel of medical researchers.

21 percent think that the US government is covering up evidence of alien existence this one?

25 percent of British people "don't believe the Apollo 11 moon landing." one of these? /six percent of Americans think the government staged the Apollo moon landings

Originally Posted by S Landreth

Nice read for the deniers/loonies out there/here. You’ll never be able to reach some people (nor should you continue to try),......

10% believe US agencies intentionally created the AIDS epidemic and 15% believe that the evidence for a link between second-hand cigarette smoke and ill-health has been invented by a corrupt cartel of medical researchers.

21 percent think that the US government is covering up evidence of alien existence

25 percent of British people "don't believe the Apollo 11 moon landing."/six percent of Americans think the government staged the Apollo moon landings

How can scientists respond?

By definition, conspiracy theories are largely impervious to increasing amounts of evidence. Indeed, in the case of climate change, we have arguably reached the point where it is the strength of the overwhelming scientific evidence that is compelling some people to accept a conspiracy theory in preference to a price on carbon or other government regulations.

Additional evidence will not find any traction among those who think of science as a conspiracy. Instead, communicators should focus on the vast majority of people who know that when medical scientists pointed to the health risks of tobacco, they did not conspire against smokers but sought to keep them alive. And that vast majority of people also understand that, when climate scientists say that the globe is warming from greenhouse gas emissions, they are not attempting to create a World Government but are alerting us to a risk to humanity’s most basic life support system.

No matter how strong the evidence on climate change, deniers will keep denying