Global warming is real.
-
So, let's rehash:
************************
"...Extreme Weather Report 2012 was presented at the latestUN Climate Conference in Doha, Qatar, but the only press this landmark study received was when British politician and author Lord Christopher Monckton was kicked out of the conference for presenting it."
*************************
Good golly, Miss Molly, get the freakin out of here with the truth, we want the fraud that will get us GLOBAL TAXES and MO MONEY.
**************************
The report is actually a massive compilation of scientific studies and news articles from both public and private sources, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Together they indicate claims of "global warming," "climate change" and "climate disruption" are nothing but a ruse to usher in massive carbon taxes and crippling regulations. Like Pavlov's dog, politicians are conditioned to react to any harsh weather event by drooling for higher taxes, notes the study. Naturally, delegates at the UN conference were not interested in the conclusions of the CFACT study.
****************************
You betcha. Read the book on corruption and power mongering in the UN, I posted about several times.
*****************************
Other citations show the hypocrisy of climate alarmists such as Al Gore, who is on record in 2009 blaming global warming for vanishing snow and ice even at Earth's poles. A mere two years later he published on his blog "increased heavy snowfalls are completely consistent with what [scientists] have been predicting as a consequence of man-made global warming."
*******************************
Yes, he did. Any emotional ploy that can help with making incredible amounts of wealth, fame and political power is a great ploy.The truth be damned, eh? Al Gore is a national farce now, and with it, should go with the wild arse claims about our near future global incineration. Remember Gore's "the earth...has a fever !" ROF,L ....
************************************************
"Doha delegates were sure to feel that sting of reproach since the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published warnings in 2007 in its Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of "fewer cold outbreaks" and "fewer, shorter, less intense cold spells/cold extremes in winter." Northern Hemisphere countries have endured unusually harsh winters since AR4 hit the newsstands."
*************************************************
ahahahahaha....."sniff" ...hee hee hoo haw haw..... eh.....sorry.......
**************************************************
Perhaps the most provocative citation in the report is the November 29 open letter from 125 scientists to UN Secretary-General H.E. Ban Ki-Moon, rebuking the UN for its claims that mankind is responsible for suffering caused by extreme weather events. "The hypothesis that our emissions of CO2 have caused, or will cause, dangerous warming is not supported by the evidence," noted the authors, who also begged, "We ask that you desist from exploiting the misery of the families of those who lost their lives or properties in tropical storm Sandy by making unsupportable claims that human influences caused that storm. They did not."
*******************************************
That is 125 SCIENTISTS. 125. Is Woody ready to sing the "I'm So Sorry" song yet?
*********************************************
The letter went on to point out NOAA's State of the Climate in 2008 report declared it would take 15 years of no observed warming to prove climate models and alarmist predictions wrong. Yet the U.K. Met Office recently reported "no statistically significant global warming for almost 16 years," during a time when NOAA says atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations rose by nearly nine percent and now make up 0.039 percent of the atmosphere.
****************************
Huh. Any silly mmgw wonks want to tackle that one? Any lib at all? Come on, man.
***************************
Mark Morano of Climate Depot, who compiled the CFACT report, summed up the nature of popular climate science on
(see video below): "Mayor Bloomberg said we need to take immediate action to prevent bad weather. This has now reached the level of the Mayan Calendar and Nostradamus. The New York Times has a picture of the Statue of Liberty under water and warning of the end times. This is not science! This is doomsday stuff of the Mayan calendar, and we have no business masquerading it as science."****************************
Exactly. I refer back to the quote I posted long ago, from the UN official who said in so many words, that mmgw was the great hope
of redistributing wealth globally, to impoverished countries. Have a nice day, Al Gorish. You moron. I'm sure Shep is so disappointed,
after referring to Al Gore as a brilliant, eloquent genius of a man. Ah, the desire for political power has no bounds for the likes of the UN,
Al Gore...the list goes on.
-
Hopefully, the 6-12 month cycle of libs bringing this up again as dire fact
can end now. And Shep, and Heck used to claim that all debate was over, and won
by the man made global warming side. It isn't even funny as it was. More sad.
-
Alright, I'll do you a favor and skip over the fact you are posting "articles" from a site called "The New American", and we'll go right in to the meat of the story...
The notion of the "new normal" of extreme weather is a farce, according to a recent report by the environmental group Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT).
Let's look into that group...
"The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) is a conservative Washington, D.C.-based non-profit organization, founded in 1985" -- not a good start
"Some of its larger donors have been ExxonMobil (which donated $542,000 from 1998-2006)..." --- also not good
"On its website tracking grants to groups, the conservative Capital Research Center listed CFACT as having received grants of $60,500 from Chevron between 1994 and 1998. (The CRC lists the grants comprising $16,000 in each of 1994, 1995 and 1996 and $12,500 in 1998). The CRC also listed CFACT from having received $25,000 from DaimlerChrysler Corporation Fund $25,000 and a token $500 from the Ford Motor Company Fund.[11]"
So we've got a article from "The New American" with its main findings coming from a report by CFACT, a conservative climate change group with funding from the people you'd expect.
Cal, you'd hop on any "study" that supports what you want to hear. DieHard could create a report showing that climate change is false cause its cold and you'd parade it around on here...
I'm sticking with the majority of climate scientists and legit, peer reviewed scientific works. You go ahead and latch on to whatever sensationalist article you'd like to
-
Woody I post the same response because you guys post same opinion over and over. Cal puts up story stating that some scientist believe global warming is bullshit. Then some other guys squawk that global warming is real and circumstances are dire because, like, scientists are cool and stuff.
I don't know if you are old enough to remember Al Gore and his predictions for the end of the world which have by now come and gone. Those opinions came from scientists too.
Our old friend heck often told us stories about how we had merely a few years left unless something very substantial was done. Well nothing substantial was done and furthermore nothing substantial is likely to be done as deadlines come and go.
Frankly whether or not these predictions are accurate or consensus or whatever it's always a good idea to follow the money. Sure the oil companies are going to hire scientist to downplay the situation but the biggest amount of money goes to the pockets of the politicians in countries who stand to make a huge windfall if the United States of America is forced to hand over billions and billions for their environmental crises.
So keep in mind that I'll probably give same response to the next round of reports that the sky is indeed falling.
If there is still a planet in five more years then, well, somebody was at least exaggerating...
WSS
Woody I post the same response because you guys post same opinion over and over. Cal puts up story stating that some scientist believe global warming is bullshit. Then some other guys squawk that global warming is real and circumstances are dire because, like, scientists are cool and stuff.
I don't know if you are old enough to remember Al Gore and his predictions for the end of the world which have by now come and gone. Those opinions came from scientists too.
Our old friend heck often told us stories about how we had merely a few years left unless something very substantial was done. Well nothing substantial was done and furthermore nothing substantial is likely to be done as deadlines come and go.
Frankly whether or not these predictions are accurate or consensus or whatever it's always a good idea to follow the money. Sure the oil companies are going to hire scientist to downplay the situation but the biggest amount of money goes to the pockets of the politicians in countries who stand to make a huge windfall if the United States of America is forced to hand over billions and billions for their environmental crises.
So keep in mind that I'll probably give same response to the next round of reports that the sky is indeed falling.
If there is still a planet in five more years then, well, somebody was at least exaggerating...
WSS
Are we supposed to change our opinion? Nothing has been reported that I've seen that would lead to me changing my opinion.
I don't know what you think Al Gore said. I don't know what you think Shep and Heck said. I'd have a hard time you're remembering word for word though. Either way, I don't really care. Respond to what I'm posting or what is being posted here, idc what you think happened earlier.
All of your talk about the world is over, the sky is falling... when have I posted any articles like that or said anything close to that? Are you just reading "these could be the consequences of climate change in the next hundred years" as "oh my god we're all doomed". Why? So you can just turn around a mock it?
Are you saying there is more money on the side of climate change being an issue vs the side that doesn't think it is? I'm really not sure, since there are more scientists on one side than the other. Oil companies do have a lot of money though... As long as you can keep the public confused (not hard to do) you can ensure that politicians will get elected that will help you out.
Also, I'll hope you stop posting that Retarded "Some scientists thought the earth as flat" line now...
-
Fine.
Scientists used to believe that insanity was caused by bad blood.
Since you arent really sure what might have gone on 10 years ago or more let's recap. There was a ridiculous movie called The Day After Tomorrow. Laughable, really funny. Al Gore who is the godfather of the global warming movement said it could happen. I understand you don't remember but the doomsayers have been out there for years and their predictions have not come true. And their predictions are based on the science of the day. I don't ask you to change your opinion. Go for it. It may be the case. I don't know but nobody's going to do anything about it. Mostly because nobody can. And if you believe it and you are not making real sacrifice in your life to try to avert the juggernaut then I could give a fuck what you think. And that's not really being insulting, woody.
I'd say it's more my response to an anti-smoking zealot who smokes 2 packs a day.
WSS
-
"I will tell my story all over the world...."
-
-
What Osiris posted about that simple experiment, probly' works just fine.
But that has nothing, zero anything, to do with the bogus man made global warming claims.
*******************************************************************************
Scientists struggle to explain the last fifteen years of cooling, ...
libs/democraps/progressives are using the changes in weather as a political power trip op.
I'll just post a link for a lot of good info on the subject:
What Osiris posted about that simple experiment, probly' works just fine.
But that has nothing, zero anything, to do with the bogus man made global warming claims.
*******************************************************************************
Scientists struggle to explain the last fifteen years of cooling, ...
libs/democraps/progressives are using the changes in weather as a political power trip op.
I'll just post a link for a lot of good info on the subject:
Yeah, my point was that people who try to point at increased snowfall as something that disproves global warming are making a mistake, and that if anything, it supports global warming. Whether the earth is warmer as part of a natural cycle or due to man made circumstances, well, I believe that it is, but I know no one here is going to change their minds, so I don't really try. I just want to see a fact-based debate.
-
So were the numerous ice ages having to do with global warming as well?
-
Well, several of us non wussie libs around here realized long ago, that
facts don't matter,
like the British portrayed.
And as most of the time, woody jumps in as an ignorant would be smart ass,
to criticize any site, and any group that disagrees with his bandwagon lib bs.
IOW's, he can't muster up references to prove his point, so he just attacks
the sources of opposing points.
It's a lib weinie knee jerk reaction. They can't help it. I've said that long before.
It is true, that those who claim mmgw/not mmgw in the hot summer, and really cold winter,
respectively,
are really being foolish opportunists, grabbing at straws.
-
Well, several of us non wussie libs around here realized long ago, that
facts don't matter,
like the British portrayed.
And as most of the time, woody jumps in as an ignorant would be smart ass,
to criticize any site, and any group that disagrees with his bandwagon lib bs.
IOW's, he can't muster up references to prove his point, so he just attacks
the sources of opposing points.
It's a lib weinie knee jerk reaction. They can't help it. I've said that long before.
It is true, that those who claim mmgw/not mmgw in the hot summer, and really cold winter,
respectively,
are really being foolish opportunists, grabbing at straws.
-
Yes, I should have put a hyphen in between "non", "wussie", and "libs".
I have a ton of farm work to do before goin on vacation in Dec, and decided intelligent
posters on this board would know what I meant....
-
My "..." had nothing to do with "non wussie libs" FYI
-
Oh. I got that wrong, then.
But my point was that all the facts from the conservative point of view are completely ignored, or bashed.
Libs tend to avoid discussion of facts that contradict their emotionalist idealogical refrains.
-
Oh. I got that wrong, then.
But my point was that all the facts from the conservative point of view are completely ignored, or bashed.
Libs tend to avoid discussion of facts that contradict their emotionalist idealogical refrains.
Oh. I got that wrong, then.
But my point was that all the facts from the conservative point of view are completely ignored, or bashed.
Libs tend to avoid discussion of facts that contradict their emotionalist idealogical refrains.
It's problematic that you call it "The conservative point of view" because that reveals that you will not deviate from the party line for any reason nor will you expect your fellows to deviate from it. I think conservatives and liberals ought to have minds of their own.
Early man walked away as modern man took control. Their minds weren't all the same and to conquer was their goal. So He built his great empires and he slaughtered his own kind, and he died a confused man and killed himself in his own mind... -
Oh. I got that wrong, then.
But my point was that all the facts from the conservative point of view are completely ignored, or bashed.
Libs tend to avoid discussion of facts that contradict their emotionalist idealogical refrains.
It's problematic that you call it "The conservative point of view" because that reveals that you will not deviate from the party line for any reason nor will you expect your fellows to deviate from it. I think conservatives and liberals ought to have minds of their own.
It's problematic that you call it "The conservative point of view" because that reveals that you will not deviate from the party line for any reason nor will you expect your fellows to deviate from it. I think conservatives and liberals ought to have minds of their own.
I agree
-
There isn't any "party" line. dems and reps disagree with mmgw.
The trend is more conservatives disagree, I think. Inadvertently, that's just
my theory about libs - they latch onto emotionist lib talking points as fact,
and conservates do far more critical thinking on issues.
-
There isn't any "party" line. dems and reps disagree with mmgw.
The trend is more conservatives disagree, I think. Inadvertently, that's just
my theory about libs - they latch onto emotionist lib talking points as fact,
and conservates do far more critical thinking on issues.
-
There isn't any "party" line. dems and reps disagree with mmgw.
The trend is more conservatives disagree, I think. Inadvertently, that's just
my theory about libs - they latch onto emotionist lib talking points as fact,
and conservates do far more critical thinking on issues.
There isn't any "party" line. dems and reps disagree with mmgw.
The trend is more conservatives disagree, I think. Inadvertently, that's just
my theory about libs - they latch onto emotionist lib talking points as fact,
and conservates do far more critical thinking on issues.
I just think it is funny you ONLY think liberals do the whole "emotions" thing. Yet in literally every thread you make it is from TheBlaze, or FoxNews, or Breitbart or whatever and the article is exactly what you want. You are reading about what you feel to give yourself confirmation you're right. Searching out articles with lines like "The Obama admistration is terrible" or "liberals blh blah blah bad thing" are emotional too. Then, you turn around in your thread and make it even more sensational, with "big serious trouble" this and "dirty liberals" that.
Apparently critical thinking and understanding hypocrisy/irony aren't one in the same.
Plus, on the critical thinking thing, doesn't the average liberal have a higher IQ than the average conservative? Idk, I may be wrong about that, and I don't really affiliate with either, but I thought that's how the data shook out.
Edit: I googled it, found some stuff on it. Not gonna post it though, not worth going down that wormhole. To just say that all conservatives do far more critical thinking though is ridiculous. If anything there is less critical thinking in keeping things the same...
But either way, your blanket statements about how bad every liberal is and how they cause everything wrong in the country are stupid, and I am pretty sure they require very little critical thinking.
-
Oh. I got that wrong, then.
But my point was that all the facts from the conservative point of view are completely ignored, or bashed.
Libs tend to avoid discussion of facts that contradict their emotionalist idealogical refrains.
It's problematic that you call it "The conservative point of view" because that reveals that you will not deviate from the party line for any reason nor will you expect your fellows to deviate from it. I think conservatives and liberals ought to have minds of their own.
It's problematic that you call it "The conservative point of view" because that reveals that you will not deviate from the party line for any reason nor will you expect your fellows to deviate from it. I think conservatives and liberals ought to have minds of their own.
I agree
I don't know why, but this made me laugh.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login