Remember me
▼ Content

News Flashes



Page 1 of 212>
News Flashes13-03-2017 18:43
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Have you noticed that the wild-eyed news flashes about AGW have greatly slowed down? Apparently the media have discovered that not only do most scientists disagree with it but almost the entirety of the public are offended by the lies of the media about it.

So the media is desisting - it's bad for business. Too many authors of climate opinions from the media are losing their ability to effect anything about anything.
13-03-2017 20:48
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofs: ... wild-eyed news flashes about AGW have greatly slowed down?....most scientists disagree with it...

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" found Willie "oilsong" Soon talkin' & stopped lookin' fer real scientists.
14-03-2017 14:47
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Wake wrote:
Have you noticed that the wild-eyed news flashes about AGW have greatly slowed down? Apparently the media have discovered that not only do most scientists disagree with it but almost the entirety of the public are offended by the lies of the media about it.

So the media is desisting - it's bad for business. Too many authors of climate opinions from the media are losing their ability to effect anything about anything.


Your crackpot delusions run deep. What 'media' are you consuming? Infowars? Breitbart? National Enquirer?

Read the position statements on climate change from every major science organisation/association worldwide.
Edited on 14-03-2017 14:52
14-03-2017 17:46
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
[b]Ceist wrote:... position statements on climate change from every major science organization/association worldwide.

Some of the position statements:
American Association for the Advancement of Science
"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society."
//////////
American Chemical Society
"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem."
//////////
American Geophysical Union
"Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)
////////
American Medical Association
"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)
///////
American Meteorological Society
"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide."
///////
American Physical Society
"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now."
////////
The Geological Society of America
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s."
///////
U.S. National Academy of Sciences
"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."
////////
U.S. Global Change Research Program
"The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Human 'fingerprints' also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and Arctic sea ice." (2009, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)
///////
List of worldwide scientific organizations:
The following page lists the nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action.
http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php
14-03-2017 18:56
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13776)
litesong wrote:
[b]Ceist wrote:... position statements on climate change from every major science organization/association worldwide.

Some of the position statements:
American Association for the Advancement of Science
"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society."
//////////
American Chemical Society
"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem."
//////////
American Geophysical Union
"Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)
////////
American Medical Association
"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)
///////
American Meteorological Society
"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide."
///////
American Physical Society
"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now."
////////
The Geological Society of America
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s."
///////
U.S. National Academy of Sciences
"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."
////////
U.S. Global Change Research Program
"The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Human 'fingerprints' also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and Arctic sea ice." (2009, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)
///////
List of worldwide scientific organizations:
The following page lists the nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action.
http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php


Link War! All Hail the Great God Consensus!

Consensus isn't used in science, Litebeer.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
14-03-2017 20:37
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed: Consensus isn't used in science...

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" retains its eunuch valuelessness.
Meanwhile:
///////
The solar TSI has been languid for many decades & low for 10 years (including a 3+year low setting a 100 year record). Yet, 385+ straight months of temperatures have past, all over the 20th century average. The last 3 years have been successively the hottest years ever recorded. Presently, Arctic sea ice extent has been below 14 million square kilometers, ~ 1.5 million square kilometers LESS than the 1980's. Presently, Arctic sea ice VOLUME is 9,600 cubic kilometers LESS than that of the 1980's. This is an equivalent cube of ice, 21.2 kilometers by 21.2 kilometers by 68,000 feet high, the energy needed to melt it being 30 times the energy consumption of the U.S. All this, while the sun's HEAT.... is low.
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=95V9E%2bjf&id=4FC0BEEDAF541FE3EDF1A01694FDEE4CCC8A3E34&
14-03-2017 22:34
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Into the Night wrote:
litesong wrote:
[b]Ceist wrote:... position statements on climate change from every major science organization/association worldwide.

Some of the position statements:
American Association for the Advancement of Science
"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society."
//////////
American Chemical Society
"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem."
//////////
American Geophysical Union
"Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)
////////
American Medical Association
"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)
///////
American Meteorological Society
"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide."
///////
American Physical Society
"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now."
////////
The Geological Society of America
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s."
///////
U.S. National Academy of Sciences
"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."
////////
U.S. Global Change Research Program
"The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Human 'fingerprints' also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and Arctic sea ice." (2009, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)
///////
List of worldwide scientific organizations:
The following page lists the nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action.
http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php


Link War! All Hail the Great God Consensus!

Consensus isn't used in science, Litebeer.

Yes we know that ignoring science and making idiotic evidence-free nonsense assertions and rants on anonymous forums is your idea of 'science'.
Edited on 14-03-2017 22:35
14-03-2017 23:14
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13776)
Ceist wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Link War! All Hail the Great God Consensus!

Consensus isn't used in science, Litebeer.

Yes we know that ignoring science and making idiotic evidence-free nonsense assertions and rants on anonymous forums is your idea of 'science'.


Quoting political groups is not science, dude. Neither is greenhouse gas theory.

You keep running into the laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law every time. You can't just ignore these at your convenience, or because you have 'consensus'.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
15-03-2017 02:54
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed: Quoting political groups is not science, dude. Neither is greenhouse gas theory.

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" retains its eunuch valuelessness.
Quoting Science Groups is powerful. Quoting the made for error, Oregon PR propaganda non-survey (accompanied by anti-AGW pulp) is a reversal of intelligence.
15-03-2017 09:43
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Into the Night wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Link War! All Hail the Great God Consensus!

Consensus isn't used in science, Litebeer.

Yes we know that ignoring science and making idiotic evidence-free nonsense assertions and rants on anonymous forums is your idea of 'science'.


Quoting political groups is not science, dude. Neither is greenhouse gas theory.

You keep running into the laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law every time. You can't just ignore these at your convenience, or because you have 'consensus'.


It's really quite sad and pathetic that you continue to show your complete ignorance of the laws of thermodynamics and the 'greenhouse' effect and continue to make insane crackpot claims.

You might as well be claiming that evolution is a hoax, or the age of the earth is less than 10,000 years old.
Edited on 15-03-2017 09:44
15-03-2017 13:38
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1875)
Ceist wrote:
Read the position statements on climate change from every major science organisation/association worldwide.



Why would I believe ANYTHING they had to say? They are paid to say what they are told to say. Here's one off the top...AAAS. 55% gov funded. Oh yea, there's a great recipe for truth.

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3239


All the time the base and surface are at equal temperature as the equilibrium graduates to establish the temperature development--Pete Rogers
15-03-2017 18:23
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13776)
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed: Quoting political groups is not science, dude. Neither is greenhouse gas theory.

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" retains its eunuch valuelessness.
Quoting Science Groups is powerful. Quoting the made for error, Oregon PR propaganda non-survey (accompanied by anti-AGW pulp) is a reversal of intelligence.


Quoting either science groups or Oregon PR propaganda as science isn't even intelligence of any kind.

Keep making up stuff like this, dude. You must have found some powerful stuff to smoke.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
15-03-2017 18:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13776)
Ceist wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Link War! All Hail the Great God Consensus!

Consensus isn't used in science, Litebeer.

Yes we know that ignoring science and making idiotic evidence-free nonsense assertions and rants on anonymous forums is your idea of 'science'.


Quoting political groups is not science, dude. Neither is greenhouse gas theory.

You keep running into the laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law every time. You can't just ignore these at your convenience, or because you have 'consensus'.


It's really quite sad and pathetic that you continue to show your complete ignorance of the laws of thermodynamics and the 'greenhouse' effect and continue to make insane crackpot claims.

You might as well be claiming that evolution is a hoax, or the age of the earth is less than 10,000 years old.


Denying science again, Ceist? STILL trying to pin science on Christianity?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
15-03-2017 19:04
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Link War! All Hail the Great God Consensus!

Consensus isn't used in science, Litebeer.

Yes we know that ignoring science and making idiotic evidence-free nonsense assertions and rants on anonymous forums is your idea of 'science'.


Quoting political groups is not science, dude. Neither is greenhouse gas theory.

You keep running into the laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law every time. You can't just ignore these at your convenience, or because you have 'consensus'.


It's really quite sad and pathetic that you continue to show your complete ignorance of the laws of thermodynamics and the 'greenhouse' effect and continue to make insane crackpot claims.

You might as well be claiming that evolution is a hoax, or the age of the earth is less than 10,000 years old.


Denying science again, Ceist? STILL trying to pin science on Christianity?


He became quite looney when we insisted he actually know something about the articles he was pasteing.
15-03-2017 21:51
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Into the Night wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Link War! All Hail the Great God Consensus!

Consensus isn't used in science, Litebeer.

Yes we know that ignoring science and making idiotic evidence-free nonsense assertions and rants on anonymous forums is your idea of 'science'.


Quoting political groups is not science, dude. Neither is greenhouse gas theory.

You keep running into the laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law every time. You can't just ignore these at your convenience, or because you have 'consensus'.


It's really quite sad and pathetic that you continue to show your complete ignorance of the laws of thermodynamics and the 'greenhouse' effect and continue to make insane crackpot claims.

You might as well be claiming that evolution is a hoax, or the age of the earth is less than 10,000 years old.


Denying science again, Ceist? STILL trying to pin science on Christianity?

You're not making any sense at all, as usual.
15-03-2017 21:58
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Link War! All Hail the Great God Consensus!

Consensus isn't used in science, Litebeer.

Yes we know that ignoring science and making idiotic evidence-free nonsense assertions and rants on anonymous forums is your idea of 'science'.


Quoting political groups is not science, dude. Neither is greenhouse gas theory.

You keep running into the laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law every time. You can't just ignore these at your convenience, or because you have 'consensus'.


It's really quite sad and pathetic that you continue to show your complete ignorance of the laws of thermodynamics and the 'greenhouse' effect and continue to make insane crackpot claims.

You might as well be claiming that evolution is a hoax, or the age of the earth is less than 10,000 years old.


Denying science again, Ceist? STILL trying to pin science on Christianity?


He became quite looney when we insisted he actually know something about the articles he was pasteing.

You mean when I proved how the claims you were mindlessly parroting from junkscience conspiracy blogs were wrong? By quoting directly from the papers (Caillon et al 2003 and Petit et al 1999) themselves rather than the rubbish the non-scientist bloggers you admire so much claimed the papers said?

I can see why that might upset someone like yourself who just unsceptically swallows whatever you read on a conspiracy blog without bothering to actually READ the referenced papers.

What a joke you are.
15-03-2017 22:01
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Read the position statements on climate change from every major science organisation/association worldwide.



Why would I believe ANYTHING they had to say? They are paid to say what they are told to say. Here's one off the top...AAAS. 55% gov funded. Oh yea, there's a great recipe for truth.

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3239


So what other science do you reject? Age of the earth? Evolution? Gravity?

BTW, most science societies are not government funded. Sounds like you are deeply paranoid. Infowars fan?
Edited on 15-03-2017 22:04
15-03-2017 22:31
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1875)
Ceist wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Read the position statements on climate change from every major science organisation/association worldwide.



Why would I believe ANYTHING they had to say? They are paid to say what they are told to say. Here's one off the top...AAAS. 55% gov funded. Oh yea, there's a great recipe for truth.

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3239


So what other science do you reject? Age of the earth? Evolution? Gravity?

BTW, most science societies are not government funded. Sounds like you are deeply paranoid. Infowars fan?


I don't trust much of anything. Paranoid? No. Skeptical of anything with a $ attached to it? Damn right.....and that doesn't stop at party lines. Corruption has infested both parties, the dems just have a disastrous platform.


All the time the base and surface are at equal temperature as the equilibrium graduates to establish the temperature development--Pete Rogers
16-03-2017 02:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13776)
Ceist wrote:
BTW, most science societies are not government funded.


True, but most MEMBERS of those same societies ARE.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
16-03-2017 15:52
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Ceist wrote:
BTW, most science societies are not government funded.


True, but most MEMBERS of those same societies ARE.


I told these scientists that if they weren't willing to speak up that they would give all scientists a bad name and not just the climate scientists. And that this would inevitably lead to the taxpayer refusing to fund any science. This is having an effect now with more scientists asking how ice cores could accurately report CO2 levels when it take at least 90 years for the frost to collapse into a sheet.

We have only had high levels for a couple of decades and other indicators indicate that spurts in the CO2 levels aren't particularly unusual.

And since CO2 isn't particularly important it doesn't matter anyway.

But I guess they'll just have to find the surface details of a spot on ceist.
16-03-2017 17:28
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"gaslighter" gushed: I don't trust much of anything.

"gaslighter" doesn't trust science, but does trust "sigh-ants".
16-03-2017 17:35
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed: Quoting either science groups or Oregon PR propaganda as science isn't even intelligence....

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" lumps science groups with the Oregon PR propaganda non-survey.
16-03-2017 20:19
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1875)
But I guess they'll just have to find the surface details of a spot on ceist.


Nice.
17-03-2017 05:17
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Ceist wrote:
BTW, most science societies are not government funded.


True, but most MEMBERS of those same societies ARE.


I told these scientists that if they weren't willing to speak up that they would give all scientists a bad name and not just the climate scientists. And that this would inevitably lead to the taxpayer refusing to fund any science. This is having an effect now with more scientists asking how ice cores could accurately report CO2 levels when it take at least 90 years for the frost to collapse into a sheet.

We have only had high levels for a couple of decades and other indicators indicate that spurts in the CO2 levels aren't particularly unusual.

And since CO2 isn't particularly important it doesn't matter anyway.

But I guess they'll just have to find the surface details of a spot on ceist.


Hey Comatose, did you 'tell all these scientists' this in your dreams ?

When are you going to cite and directly quote from even one published evidence-based research paper anything that supports your nutcase evidence-free assertions? All you are doing is regurgitating from junkscience conspiracy blogs run by non-scientist cranks who just make up shit about the papers they reference. You unsceptically swallow the shit, then just mindlessly regurgitate it here.

If you ever wake up from your self-imposed coma, you're going to have a really really nasty taste in your mouth.

Edited on 17-03-2017 05:19
17-03-2017 05:43
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Into the Night wrote:
Ceist wrote:
BTW, most science societies are not government funded.


True, but most MEMBERS of those same societies ARE.

The evidence for anthropogenic global warming is so strong because it has been converging for decades from many different independent lines of investigation and research from many different fields from scientists from countries all over the world. Some of this research was government funded, some privately funded.

Much of this research didn't even have anything to do with studying the climate (eg the US Air-force's research into CO2 in the atmosphere while they were designing heat seeking missiles in the 1960's)

In your paranoid and delusional mind, are all governments around the world involved in the same giant world-wide conspiracy that also involves millions of scientists from all over the world faking evidence, including even the laws of physics?

Edited on 17-03-2017 05:56
17-03-2017 05:55
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Ceist wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Read the position statements on climate change from every major science organisation/association worldwide.



Why would I believe ANYTHING they had to say? They are paid to say what they are told to say. Here's one off the top...AAAS. 55% gov funded. Oh yea, there's a great recipe for truth.

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3239


So what other science do you reject? Age of the earth? Evolution? Gravity?

BTW, most science societies are not government funded. Sounds like you are deeply paranoid. Infowars fan?


I don't trust much of anything. Paranoid? No. Skeptical of anything with a $ attached to it? Damn right.....and that doesn't stop at party lines. Corruption has infested both parties, the dems just have a disastrous platform.

I'm not American.
17-03-2017 06:13
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1875)
In your paranoid and delusional mind, are all governments around the world involved in the same giant world-wide conspiracy that also involves millions of scientists from all over the world faking evidence, including even the laws of physics?



I know this much,
When new taxes are imposed they don't go away.
When freedoms disappear they're gone forever.
And when the gov controls healthcare and energy-they control your life.

We are damn fools to blindly give away the freedoms that were earned with buckets of blood.

Even if you are a warmie hardliner, what's worse for your children and grand children.... paying 50%-75%-90%? of everything they work for in taxes because we burned the country credit card on "Green" everything?...or 1 degree warmer. There is no question which one will be a miserable hardship.

Hell, that's a great question right now for you warmies.

If you could knock the global temp down 1 degree tomorrow..... What percent of your paycheck would you be willing to give away for the rest of your life to get it done?


All the time the base and surface are at equal temperature as the equilibrium graduates to establish the temperature development--Pete Rogers
Edited on 17-03-2017 06:15
17-03-2017 07:46
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
GasGuzzler wrote:
In your paranoid and delusional mind, are all governments around the world involved in the same giant world-wide conspiracy that also involves millions of scientists from all over the world faking evidence, including even the laws of physics?



I know this much,
When new taxes are imposed they don't go away.
When freedoms disappear they're gone forever.
And when the gov controls healthcare and energy-they control your life.

We are damn fools to blindly give away the freedoms that were earned with buckets of blood.

Even if you are a warmie hardliner, what's worse for your children and grand children.... paying 50%-75%-90%? of everything they work for in taxes because we burned the country credit card on "Green" everything?...or 1 degree warmer. There is no question which one will be a miserable hardship.

Hell, that's a great question right now for you warmies.

If you could knock the global temp down 1 degree tomorrow..... What percent of your paycheck would you be willing to give away for the rest of your life to get it done?


You're arguing from a false premise. We don't need to pay higher taxes if we stop subsidizing fossil fuels and invest in renewable/alternative energy solutions instead.

You're rejecting science because you've bought into the dishonest fear-mongering and misinformation by fossil fuel companies trying to protect their profits.
17-03-2017 14:44
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1875)
You're arguing from a false premise. We don't need to pay higher taxes if we stop subsidizing fossil fuels and invest in renewable/alternative energy solutions instead.

So how much will it cost to stop burning fossil fuels? No fuel should be subsidized, INCLUDING renewables. When the technology is developed, renewables will be an attractive product. Global warming is a trillion dollar industry and gov should stay out of it. I've said it before I'll say it again. Go for it. If you think the world needs cleaning then be my guest. Don't send me the bill for your belief.
You're rejecting science because you've bought into the dishonest fear-mongering and misinformation by fossil fuel companies trying to protect their profits.

Really? You are going to accuse my side of fear-mongering? I'm sure there is some, but do I need to repost the 5 million dead every year due to global warming?

I knew you wouldn't answer the question. You people never do.
How much out of YOUR paycheck will you spend to eliminate fossil fuels?


All the time the base and surface are at equal temperature as the equilibrium graduates to establish the temperature development--Pete Rogers
17-03-2017 16:06
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Ceist wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Ceist wrote:
BTW, most science societies are not government funded.


True, but most MEMBERS of those same societies ARE.


I told these scientists that if they weren't willing to speak up that they would give all scientists a bad name and not just the climate scientists. And that this would inevitably lead to the taxpayer refusing to fund any science. This is having an effect now with more scientists asking how ice cores could accurately report CO2 levels when it take at least 90 years for the frost to collapse into a sheet.

We have only had high levels for a couple of decades and other indicators indicate that spurts in the CO2 levels aren't particularly unusual.

And since CO2 isn't particularly important it doesn't matter anyway.

But I guess they'll just have to find the surface details of a spot on ceist.


Hey Comatose, did you 'tell all these scientists' this in your dreams ?

When are you going to cite and directly quote from even one published evidence-based research paper anything that supports your nutcase evidence-free assertions? All you are doing is regurgitating from junkscience conspiracy blogs run by non-scientist cranks who just make up shit about the papers they reference. You unsceptically swallow the shit, then just mindlessly regurgitate it here.

If you ever wake up from your self-imposed coma, you're going to have a really really nasty taste in your mouth.


On your brightest day you wouldn't even be allowed inside a meeting let alone be allowed to speak. So tottle over and see if you can use the potty before your mother discovered you've dirtied your diaper.
17-03-2017 18:13
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Wake wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Ceist wrote:
BTW, most science societies are not government funded.


True, but most MEMBERS of those same societies ARE.


I told these scientists that if they weren't willing to speak up that they would give all scientists a bad name and not just the climate scientists. And that this would inevitably lead to the taxpayer refusing to fund any science. This is having an effect now with more scientists asking how ice cores could accurately report CO2 levels when it take at least 90 years for the frost to collapse into a sheet.

We have only had high levels for a couple of decades and other indicators indicate that spurts in the CO2 levels aren't particularly unusual.

And since CO2 isn't particularly important it doesn't matter anyway.

But I guess they'll just have to find the surface details of a spot on ceist.


Hey Comatose, did you 'tell all these scientists' this in your dreams ?

When are you going to cite and directly quote from even one published evidence-based research paper anything that supports your nutcase evidence-free assertions? All you are doing is regurgitating from junkscience conspiracy blogs run by non-scientist cranks who just make up shit about the papers they reference. You unsceptically swallow the shit, then just mindlessly regurgitate it here.

If you ever wake up from your self-imposed coma, you're going to have a really really nasty taste in your mouth.


On your brightest day you wouldn't even be allowed inside a meeting let alone be allowed to speak. So tottle over and see if you can use the potty before your mother discovered you've dirtied your diaper.


So still no links/direct quotes from any published papers?
17-03-2017 18:19
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
GasGuzzler wrote:
You're arguing from a false premise. We don't need to pay higher taxes if we stop subsidizing fossil fuels and invest in renewable/alternative energy solutions instead.

So how much will it cost to stop burning fossil fuels? No fuel should be subsidized, INCLUDING renewables. When the technology is developed, renewables will be an attractive product. Global warming is a trillion dollar industry and gov should stay out of it. I've said it before I'll say it again. Go for it. If you think the world needs cleaning then be my guest. Don't send me the bill for your belief.
You're rejecting science because you've bought into the dishonest fear-mongering and misinformation by fossil fuel companies trying to protect their profits.

Really? You are going to accuse my side of fear-mongering? I'm sure there is some, but do I need to repost the 5 million dead every year due to global warming?

I knew you wouldn't answer the question. You people never do.
How much out of YOUR paycheck will you spend to eliminate fossil fuels?


Like I said, your question and your argument is based on a false premise, as well as abject ignorance.
17-03-2017 18:45
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Ceist wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
You're arguing from a false premise. We don't need to pay higher taxes if we stop subsidizing fossil fuels and invest in renewable/alternative energy solutions instead.

So how much will it cost to stop burning fossil fuels? No fuel should be subsidized, INCLUDING renewables. When the technology is developed, renewables will be an attractive product. Global warming is a trillion dollar industry and gov should stay out of it. I've said it before I'll say it again. Go for it. If you think the world needs cleaning then be my guest. Don't send me the bill for your belief.
You're rejecting science because you've bought into the dishonest fear-mongering and misinformation by fossil fuel companies trying to protect their profits.

Really? You are going to accuse my side of fear-mongering? I'm sure there is some, but do I need to repost the 5 million dead every year due to global warming?

I knew you wouldn't answer the question. You people never do.
How much out of YOUR paycheck will you spend to eliminate fossil fuels?


Like I said, your question and your argument is based on a false premise, as well as abject ignorance.


With the EPA funding to be reduced by 30% and it's extra-governmental powers removed it looks like your worries about the entire world being taken over by people so much less intelligent than yourself has finally been achieved. Please continue patting yourself on the back and telling everyone how intelligent you are though never achieving one thing in your entire life.
17-03-2017 18:55
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Wake wrote:
Ceist wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
You're arguing from a false premise. We don't need to pay higher taxes if we stop subsidizing fossil fuels and invest in renewable/alternative energy solutions instead.

So how much will it cost to stop burning fossil fuels? No fuel should be subsidized, INCLUDING renewables. When the technology is developed, renewables will be an attractive product. Global warming is a trillion dollar industry and gov should stay out of it. I've said it before I'll say it again. Go for it. If you think the world needs cleaning then be my guest. Don't send me the bill for your belief.
You're rejecting science because you've bought into the dishonest fear-mongering and misinformation by fossil fuel companies trying to protect their profits.

Really? You are going to accuse my side of fear-mongering? I'm sure there is some, but do I need to repost the 5 million dead every year due to global warming?

I knew you wouldn't answer the question. You people never do.
How much out of YOUR paycheck will you spend to eliminate fossil fuels?


Like I said, your question and your argument is based on a false premise, as well as abject ignorance.


Please continue patting yourself on the back and telling everyone how intelligent you are though never achieving one thing in your entire life.


It would be nice if you could 'achieve' posting some links and direct quotes from published research papers instead of mindlessly regurgitating the rants of non-scientists on junkscience conspiracy blogs.
17-03-2017 19:09
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Ceist wrote:
Wake wrote:
Ceist wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
You're arguing from a false premise. We don't need to pay higher taxes if we stop subsidizing fossil fuels and invest in renewable/alternative energy solutions instead.

So how much will it cost to stop burning fossil fuels? No fuel should be subsidized, INCLUDING renewables. When the technology is developed, renewables will be an attractive product. Global warming is a trillion dollar industry and gov should stay out of it. I've said it before I'll say it again. Go for it. If you think the world needs cleaning then be my guest. Don't send me the bill for your belief.
You're rejecting science because you've bought into the dishonest fear-mongering and misinformation by fossil fuel companies trying to protect their profits.

Really? You are going to accuse my side of fear-mongering? I'm sure there is some, but do I need to repost the 5 million dead every year due to global warming?

I knew you wouldn't answer the question. You people never do.
How much out of YOUR paycheck will you spend to eliminate fossil fuels?


Like I said, your question and your argument is based on a false premise, as well as abject ignorance.


Please continue patting yourself on the back and telling everyone how intelligent you are though never achieving one thing in your entire life.


It would be nice if you could 'achieve' posting some links and direct quotes from published research papers instead of mindlessly regurgitating the rants of non-scientists on junkscience conspiracy blogs.


My, my, you still don't even know how to find the papers. But I don't expect that to improve because you aren't very bright.
17-03-2017 20:17
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Wake wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Wake wrote:
Ceist wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
You're arguing from a false premise. We don't need to pay higher taxes if we stop subsidizing fossil fuels and invest in renewable/alternative energy solutions instead.

So how much will it cost to stop burning fossil fuels? No fuel should be subsidized, INCLUDING renewables. When the technology is developed, renewables will be an attractive product. Global warming is a trillion dollar industry and gov should stay out of it. I've said it before I'll say it again. Go for it. If you think the world needs cleaning then be my guest. Don't send me the bill for your belief.
You're rejecting science because you've bought into the dishonest fear-mongering and misinformation by fossil fuel companies trying to protect their profits.

Really? You are going to accuse my side of fear-mongering? I'm sure there is some, but do I need to repost the 5 million dead every year due to global warming?

I knew you wouldn't answer the question. You people never do.
How much out of YOUR paycheck will you spend to eliminate fossil fuels?


Like I said, your question and your argument is based on a false premise, as well as abject ignorance.


Please continue patting yourself on the back and telling everyone how intelligent you are though never achieving one thing in your entire life.


It would be nice if you could 'achieve' posting some links and direct quotes from published research papers instead of mindlessly regurgitating the rants of non-scientists on junkscience conspiracy blogs.


My, my, you still don't even know how to find the papers. But I don't expect that to improve because you aren't very bright.


I've been the one posting links to published research papers. You're the one regurgitating shit from junkscience conspiracy blogs and not even being able to tell the difference between a published paper and a blog post.


I don't expect that to improve.... because you've proven you're not only a pathological liar, but a mentally unhinged conspiracy addled glazed eyed blithering idiot


Did you drop too much LSD in the 60's and fry your brain or were you born that way?
Edited on 17-03-2017 20:21
17-03-2017 21:53
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1875)
Like I said, your question and your argument is based on a false premise, as well as abject ignorance.


OK genius, what your plan and how do we fix it? What is your solution? How much does it cost?


All the time the base and surface are at equal temperature as the equilibrium graduates to establish the temperature development--Pete Rogers
17-03-2017 22:18
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Like I said, your question and your argument is based on a false premise, as well as abject ignorance.


OK genius, what your plan and how do we fix it? What is your solution? How much does it cost?


Even used with extreme sarcasm "genius" is much too good for Chief Limpwrist.
17-03-2017 22:22
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1875)
It was actually Cyst that I was responding to, but it don't much matter. They're all the same. They like to sit and bitch all day. It makes them feel important and worthy of something...who knows what.
Edited on 17-03-2017 23:14
17-03-2017 22:48
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GasGuzzler wrote:
It was actually Cyst that I was responding to, but it don't much matter. They're all the same. They like to sit and bitch all day. It make them feel important and worthy of something...who knows what.


Cyst tells us that a paper that references other papers and gives the actual references is "junk science". I guess because they aren't holding his hand so that he can look them up under a teacher's eye.
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate News Flashes:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Fox News is Gone1810-11-2020 19:25
CNN vs. Fox News810-11-2020 05:29
Not such good news3201-07-2020 21:37
Fox news228-06-2020 08:51
good news and speculation1219-06-2020 07:38
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact