Thank Trump
- Thread starter eelgrass
- Start date
RELH
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 17,483
China and India both put out far more carbon then we do. both of those countries said "screw you" on making changes to lower their carbon footprint. They did not like the idea that it would put their growing economy into a nosedive, but we should put ours into one by going with the Paris accord.
RELH
RELH
cheeseheadinOHIO
Active Member
- Messages
- 490
How did this guy get his info when they don't believe scientists. 200 countries in favor to one backing out. Hmm. Like FauxNews vs the rest of the news world. You ever seen the skies over china. Not so good. Lots of pollution. That's why they don't want environmental regulations.
Why don't you try listening to the man. He actually makes your China point for you in a much more cerebral and effective manner, and explains why it's a bad deal. Trying to be an activist is really simple trying to be an informed activist is why you and AOC seem to have an abundance of air rather than gray matter between your ears. It also shows why neither of you are ready for prime time and why like the cows you want to regulate you both open your mouths and stink up the planet as all the noxious gasses escape.
RELH
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 17,483
LAST EDITED ON May-17-19 AT 08:14PM (MST)[p]Cheesehead, not all scientists buy into the climate change can be regulated by humans. A good portion of the scientists that do are funded by grants and they want to keep the money coming by fostering man made climate change. First it was global warming that was going to melt the polar ice caps and flood seaside cities. Al Gore made millions out of that one why flying around the world in his jet airplane and paying 1600 bucks per month for his estate utility bills.
When that failed to come true and we started to seeing them changed it to "climate change" to cover their A$$ on a cooling trend.
If you feel so strong about it, give up driving your gas or diesel powered vehicle and buy yourself a bicycle to get around in. Maybe then we might give your opinion a little bit of credit.
RELH
When that failed to come true and we started to seeing them changed it to "climate change" to cover their A$$ on a cooling trend.
If you feel so strong about it, give up driving your gas or diesel powered vehicle and buy yourself a bicycle to get around in. Maybe then we might give your opinion a little bit of credit.
RELH
cheeseheadinOHIO
Active Member
- Messages
- 490
>LAST EDITED ON May-17-19
>AT 08:14?PM (MST)
>
>Cheesehead, not all scientists buy into
>the climate change can be
>regulated by humans. A good
>portion of the scientists that
>do are funded by grants
>and they want to keep
>the money coming by fostering
>man made climate change. First
>it was global warming that
>was going to melt the
>polar ice caps and flood
>seaside cities. Al Gore made
>millions out of that one
>why flying around the world
>in his jet airplane and
>paying 1600 bucks per month
>for his estate utility bills.
>
> When that
>failed to come true and
>we started to seeing them
>changed it to "climate change"
>to cover their A$$ on
>a cooling trend.
>
> If you feel
>so strong about it, give
>up driving your gas or
>diesel powered vehicle and buy
>yourself a bicycle to get
>around in. Maybe then we
>might give your opinion a
>little bit of credit.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> RELH
Wait, did you just insinuate that climate change exists?
>AT 08:14?PM (MST)
>
>Cheesehead, not all scientists buy into
>the climate change can be
>regulated by humans. A good
>portion of the scientists that
>do are funded by grants
>and they want to keep
>the money coming by fostering
>man made climate change. First
>it was global warming that
>was going to melt the
>polar ice caps and flood
>seaside cities. Al Gore made
>millions out of that one
>why flying around the world
>in his jet airplane and
>paying 1600 bucks per month
>for his estate utility bills.
>
> When that
>failed to come true and
>we started to seeing them
>changed it to "climate change"
>to cover their A$$ on
>a cooling trend.
>
> If you feel
>so strong about it, give
>up driving your gas or
>diesel powered vehicle and buy
>yourself a bicycle to get
>around in. Maybe then we
>might give your opinion a
>little bit of credit.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> RELH
Wait, did you just insinuate that climate change exists?
eelgrass
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 31,503
Congressman Crenshaw gave into the idea that climate change is happening because of humans. He just pointed out that crippling the US economy while ignoring the biggest offenders was not the solution. He doesn't think that leading the world in stupidity would be in our best interest, or in the best interest of climate change.
It's fake news, a lie and a scam concocted by the left and the UN designed to take more of your money & your freedom and give it to the govt. Don't be dumb cheesewhiz - of course 200 pathetic countries would love to rid us of our wealth and our way of life and you're dumb enough to oblige them. When hope & change signed us up for Paris, those 200 countries you speak of were laughing their asses off at our stupidity. Ever notice how not one single doomsday predictions by these so called "scientists" has ever come even remotely true. But yeah we're supposed to believe that destroying our economy is a good thing because some predetermined computer model says Co2 might raise the temperature by a 1/2 degree in maybe 100 years. Glad most people aren't as dumb as you.
cheeseheadinOHIO
Active Member
- Messages
- 490
We'll see. It will either be the US Constitution or the lying GOP. And you all know, the orange turd does a lot of lying.
CAforkedhorn
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,529
LAST EDITED ON May-18-19 AT 09:08PM (MST)[p]Says the absolute retard who still thinks that Trump colluded with Russia. I think you libtards and never Trumpers should stop throwing stones in your glass houses for a while. It seems there were quite a lot of lies told by you pond scum to try to unseat a duly elected president and now you want us to believe the world is going to end in 12 years.
I think if I remember right polar bears were supposed to be extinct by now. It's funny how libtards declare scientists, especially when there is a consensus, to be the great prophets of nature's future, while ignoring what nature actually does. Hello... Earth to retards... Manhattan is not flooding...maybe the scientists were wrong!
Here's a good read!
https://www.nationalreview.com/2016...-expires-climate-change-fanatics-wrong-again/
Oh and let's not let facts get in the way DickheadinOHIO. Do a google search on the current status of polar bears and after you wade through the BS foundations STILL predicting the demise of the polar bears you will get to this...
https://polarbearscience.com/2019/0...r-report-2018-polar-bears-continue-to-thrive/
Again, more evidence your global warming is crap and also evidence that the bigger threat to your simpleton existence is how long can you breathe with your head so far up your ass.
I think if I remember right polar bears were supposed to be extinct by now. It's funny how libtards declare scientists, especially when there is a consensus, to be the great prophets of nature's future, while ignoring what nature actually does. Hello... Earth to retards... Manhattan is not flooding...maybe the scientists were wrong!
Here's a good read!
https://www.nationalreview.com/2016...-expires-climate-change-fanatics-wrong-again/
Oh and let's not let facts get in the way DickheadinOHIO. Do a google search on the current status of polar bears and after you wade through the BS foundations STILL predicting the demise of the polar bears you will get to this...
https://polarbearscience.com/2019/0...r-report-2018-polar-bears-continue-to-thrive/
Again, more evidence your global warming is crap and also evidence that the bigger threat to your simpleton existence is how long can you breathe with your head so far up your ass.
YBO
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,185
No wonder the progressive pukes pretty much stopped posting. They are wrong on so many levels and after awhile it becomes obvious that they finally realize they are gluttens for punishment.
I wonder if Dude is still accepting bets on the 2020 general election?
I wonder if Dude is still accepting bets on the 2020 general election?
My problem with the global warming narrative is (1) that it lacks clarity, (2) that the narrative changes, (3) the sacred texts in the narrative allow themselves to be fudged and corrupted by obviously worthless information, and (4)there is singularly little in the way of real numbers floating around.
(1)
What is meant by global warming? How is it defined? How is it measured? It is cold today, does that mean there is global cooling happening? It was hot three days ago: was THAT global warming? How is this defined. Obviously it is not weather. What is the proper interval of time over which warming is to be defined to be warming? There was a 200 year period between 1000 AD and 1200 AD when temperatures were notably warmer that average. Was THAT global warming? Why not? It has been said it MIGHT have been warmer in the 1000 to 1200 AD interval than it is currently (by a global warming supporter at East Anglia Climatology Centre in England). This undermines Al Gore's claim in his faux documentary, viz the hockey stick graph, that temperatures have NEVER been hotter than they are now.
Is global warming bad? Can't it be bad for some and good for others? I think it has been good for wine growers. When I started to drink wine in 1975 it was not usual to find wine with alcohol over 12% from Europe. Now wines from Bordeaux are commonly over 13% Wines from Alsace in NE France are commonly over 13%. This is because the grapes are achieving higher levels of ripeness due to warmer temperatures.
This ought to be part of the debate, to clarify some of these points. The fact that these things are NOT clarified, in my judgment, indicates this is more to do with political gaming than about science or "save the world" leadership.
(2)
As someone pointed out, the topic has changed from global warming to climate change. This is moving the goal posts, as it were. I imagine this happened because actual warming largely came to a halt in about 2000. There is precious little warming that is being seen over the last 15-20 years. That is tough on folks who want to argue CO2 emissions are creating a greenhouse effect and causing warming. How can warming cease at precisely the point in time when CO2 emissions are at their highest, exponentially increasing? Let's change the definition to something that can't be disputed -- changing climate. But wait?! Climate DOES change! It changed during the Little Ice Age 1225 to 1850; it changed during the Medieval Warming Epoch 1000 AD to 1200 AD. Obviously it changed in the past when we had ice ages. These earlier climate changes were not driven by human behaviour. Maybe, just maybe, our climate change today is NOT being driven by human behaviour? Again, that is not a hypothesis that is fully explored and analysed. In fact, people who try to go down that path are punished and shamed and often suffer for their efforts in their careers.
(3)
Some time back -- about 1992? 2002? -- the UN council on climate released a report in which they included information from an Indian scientist who said that at current rates all the Himalayian glaciers would be melted in 30 years. The problem was the guy said this off-hand on a radio station, it was picked up by a journalist, and it found its way into the UN executive summary unquestioned. The guy was NOT a glacier scientist or a climate scientist. His evidence was based on seeing snow melt during a weekend hike in the Himalayas. Other glacier scientists pointed out the poverty of this report to the UN panel, but they did not see fit to question or remove this anecdotal story. These glacier scientists have said some glaciers in the Himalayas are growing smaller; other glaciers in the Himalayas are growing larger. Even the glaciers that are growing smaller would take about 300 years -- not 30 years -- to disappear at current rates of retreat.
Some people have counterargued that the observed warming is due to the creation of urban concrete heat wells proximate to temperature monitoring stations. Global warming zealots used a study of Chinese temperature data that showed this counterargument to be false. But further investigation found these Chinese temperature data stations were often moved in location -- sometimes 40 kilometres in location -- and this movement was not recorded in the data. In my view that whole study is invalid -- the data is invalid because the provenance and consistency of the instruments was not secure.
We hear that the ice caps are the smallest they have ever been and at this rate the northern polar ice is going to be completely thawed, an unheard of phenomenon. But then we soon hear the northern polar ice is back to an all time record high again. How do you go from the one story to the second story and not lose your faith in the global warming Cassandras?
(4)
Numbers. It is said that you don't have science until you have numbers. Where are the numbers? We are told the oceans may rise 200 feet if all the ice caps melt. Well, what is the probability of that outcome? What are the assumptions needed for that outcome to occur? Is that a 0.01% probability scenario or a 30% probability scenario or a 80% probability scenario?
Just about all the numbers are tied up in computer model simulations. It have heard that the models are never updated with new discoveries that moderate the simulation results. A few years ago I read an article about how the interaction of cloud formation interacted with solar energy had been misappreciated and that adapting the simulation model would result in warming progressing at 1/3 the previous rate. That is good news! It will take 3 times as long for the oceans to rise and all the ice caps to melt. But this news is never reported and the models are not adapted.
For all of these reasons I do not have "faith" in the climate change issue. Undefined, unquantified, unresponsive to negative data and findings. It just smells like a gigantic hoax to me. Color me sceptical. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. We have gone around this rodeo of dire threats before.
(1)
What is meant by global warming? How is it defined? How is it measured? It is cold today, does that mean there is global cooling happening? It was hot three days ago: was THAT global warming? How is this defined. Obviously it is not weather. What is the proper interval of time over which warming is to be defined to be warming? There was a 200 year period between 1000 AD and 1200 AD when temperatures were notably warmer that average. Was THAT global warming? Why not? It has been said it MIGHT have been warmer in the 1000 to 1200 AD interval than it is currently (by a global warming supporter at East Anglia Climatology Centre in England). This undermines Al Gore's claim in his faux documentary, viz the hockey stick graph, that temperatures have NEVER been hotter than they are now.
Is global warming bad? Can't it be bad for some and good for others? I think it has been good for wine growers. When I started to drink wine in 1975 it was not usual to find wine with alcohol over 12% from Europe. Now wines from Bordeaux are commonly over 13% Wines from Alsace in NE France are commonly over 13%. This is because the grapes are achieving higher levels of ripeness due to warmer temperatures.
This ought to be part of the debate, to clarify some of these points. The fact that these things are NOT clarified, in my judgment, indicates this is more to do with political gaming than about science or "save the world" leadership.
(2)
As someone pointed out, the topic has changed from global warming to climate change. This is moving the goal posts, as it were. I imagine this happened because actual warming largely came to a halt in about 2000. There is precious little warming that is being seen over the last 15-20 years. That is tough on folks who want to argue CO2 emissions are creating a greenhouse effect and causing warming. How can warming cease at precisely the point in time when CO2 emissions are at their highest, exponentially increasing? Let's change the definition to something that can't be disputed -- changing climate. But wait?! Climate DOES change! It changed during the Little Ice Age 1225 to 1850; it changed during the Medieval Warming Epoch 1000 AD to 1200 AD. Obviously it changed in the past when we had ice ages. These earlier climate changes were not driven by human behaviour. Maybe, just maybe, our climate change today is NOT being driven by human behaviour? Again, that is not a hypothesis that is fully explored and analysed. In fact, people who try to go down that path are punished and shamed and often suffer for their efforts in their careers.
(3)
Some time back -- about 1992? 2002? -- the UN council on climate released a report in which they included information from an Indian scientist who said that at current rates all the Himalayian glaciers would be melted in 30 years. The problem was the guy said this off-hand on a radio station, it was picked up by a journalist, and it found its way into the UN executive summary unquestioned. The guy was NOT a glacier scientist or a climate scientist. His evidence was based on seeing snow melt during a weekend hike in the Himalayas. Other glacier scientists pointed out the poverty of this report to the UN panel, but they did not see fit to question or remove this anecdotal story. These glacier scientists have said some glaciers in the Himalayas are growing smaller; other glaciers in the Himalayas are growing larger. Even the glaciers that are growing smaller would take about 300 years -- not 30 years -- to disappear at current rates of retreat.
Some people have counterargued that the observed warming is due to the creation of urban concrete heat wells proximate to temperature monitoring stations. Global warming zealots used a study of Chinese temperature data that showed this counterargument to be false. But further investigation found these Chinese temperature data stations were often moved in location -- sometimes 40 kilometres in location -- and this movement was not recorded in the data. In my view that whole study is invalid -- the data is invalid because the provenance and consistency of the instruments was not secure.
We hear that the ice caps are the smallest they have ever been and at this rate the northern polar ice is going to be completely thawed, an unheard of phenomenon. But then we soon hear the northern polar ice is back to an all time record high again. How do you go from the one story to the second story and not lose your faith in the global warming Cassandras?
(4)
Numbers. It is said that you don't have science until you have numbers. Where are the numbers? We are told the oceans may rise 200 feet if all the ice caps melt. Well, what is the probability of that outcome? What are the assumptions needed for that outcome to occur? Is that a 0.01% probability scenario or a 30% probability scenario or a 80% probability scenario?
Just about all the numbers are tied up in computer model simulations. It have heard that the models are never updated with new discoveries that moderate the simulation results. A few years ago I read an article about how the interaction of cloud formation interacted with solar energy had been misappreciated and that adapting the simulation model would result in warming progressing at 1/3 the previous rate. That is good news! It will take 3 times as long for the oceans to rise and all the ice caps to melt. But this news is never reported and the models are not adapted.
For all of these reasons I do not have "faith" in the climate change issue. Undefined, unquantified, unresponsive to negative data and findings. It just smells like a gigantic hoax to me. Color me sceptical. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. We have gone around this rodeo of dire threats before.
CAforkedhorn
Long Time Member
- Messages
- 3,529
I absolutely 100% agree Alsatian. I'm not arguing that the Earth has warming and cooling periods, I'm just not dumb enough to buy into the BS that taxing me more will somehow reverse whatever warming trend (if any) there is.
It never ceases to amaze me at the stupidity of people like DickheadinOHIO and Ochotard who think that cow farts will be the death of the human race.
It never ceases to amaze me at the stupidity of people like DickheadinOHIO and Ochotard who think that cow farts will be the death of the human race.
Alsatian and others hit it on the head it's theoretical science not proven. Many of the base values used to formulate their theorems are guesstimates. They can blow smoke all they want but they're short on proof and long on speculation and that's exactly why they don't have consensus within the scientific community itself........
