More Global Cooling/Warming/Change hoax.

Bill mahr and howard dean bookending this debate, cutting edge comedy, I know. Use real data, not altered data. Stop the government funding of research. Allow real scientists with science rather than political agendas as their goal.


10585 peer reviewed scientific articles on climate change in the last 5 years

2 believe that man is not causing some portion of global warming.

It's a conspiracy!

lolz

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kI1PWupraI
 

Jeff Young

GT40s Supporter
I'd love for you to go through those 10585 scientists and let them know they are not "real."

Good grief man. The science on this -- SCIENCE -- is overwhelming.
 
Science on a foundation of falsified data. Flat Earther scientists indeed. Ether in on the corruption or afraid of losing their job/grant if they disagree.

I'd love for you to go through those 10585 scientists and let them know they are not "real."

Good grief man. The science on this -- SCIENCE -- is overwhelming.
 

Keith

Moderator
That's totally old hat. Overall, the data is now far too compelling to ignore, unless you're an ostrich of course...
 
That's totally old hat. Overall, the data is now far too compelling to ignore, unless you're an ostrich of course...

Right you are Keith.
"Scientists on all sides of the global warming debate are in general agreement about how much heat is being directly trapped by human emissions of carbon dioxide (the answer is “not much”). However, the single most important issue in the global warming debate is whether carbon dioxide emissions will indirectly trap far more heat by causing large increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds. Alarmist computer models assume human carbon dioxide emissions indirectly cause substantial increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds (each of which are very effective at trapping heat), but real-world data have long shown that carbon dioxide emissions are not causing as much atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds as the alarmist computer models have predicted."

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism - Forbes
"
 

Pete McCluskey.

Lifetime Supporter
You will never convince those who do not want to be convinced. You can talk all you like my minds made up.
I think that statement applies to both sides of this argument.
Having said that I remain a sceptic.
 

Terry Oxandale

Skinny Man
Bill mahr and howard dean bookending this debate, cutting edge comedy, I know. Use real data, not altered data. Stop the government funding of research. Allow real scientists with science rather than political agendas as their goal.

Remember this quote when Cruz decides to defund any NASA projects that relate to the study of global warming. It will happen eventually.
 
Another opinion.
PATRICK MOORE
Dr. Patrick Moore is the co-founder, chair, and chief scientist of Greenspirit Strategies

Editor’s Note: Patrick Moore, Ph.D., has been a leader in international environmentalism for more than 40 years. He cofounded Greenpeace and currently serves as chair of Allow Golden Rice. Moore received the 2014 Speaks Truth to Power Award at the Ninth International Conference on Climate Change, July 8, in Las Vegas.

I am skeptical humans are the main cause of climate change and that it will be catastrophic in the near future. There is no scientific proof of this hypothesis, yet we are told “the debate is over” and “the science is settled.”

My skepticism begins with the believers’ certainty they can predict the global climate with a computer model. The entire basis for the doomsday climate change scenario is the hypothesis increased atmospheric carbon dioxide due to fossil fuel emissions will heat the Earth to unlivable temperatures.

In fact, the Earth has been warming very gradually for 300 years, since the Little Ice Age ended, long before heavy use of fossil fuels. Prior to the Little Ice Age, during the Medieval Warm Period, Vikings colonized Greenland and Newfoundland, when it was warmer there than today. And during Roman times, it was warmer, long before fossil fuels revolutionized civilization.

The idea it would be catastrophic if carbon dioxide were to increase and average global temperature were to rise a few degrees is preposterous.

Recently, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) announced for the umpteenth time we are doomed unless we reduce carbon-dioxide emissions to zero. Effectively this means either reducing the population to zero, or going back 10,000 years before humans began clearing forests for agriculture. This proposed cure is far worse than adapting to a warmer world, if it actually comes about.

IPCC Conflict of Interest

By its constitution, the IPCC has a hopeless conflict of interest. Its mandate is to consider only the human causes of global warming, not the many natural causes changing the climate for billions of years. We don’t understand the natural causes of climate change any more than we know if humans are part of the cause at present. If the IPCC did not find humans were the cause of warming, or if it found warming would be more positive than negative, there would be no need for the IPCC under its present mandate. To survive, it must find on the side of the apocalypse.

The IPCC should either have its mandate expanded to include all causes of climate change, or it should be dismantled.

Political Powerhouse

Climate change has become a powerful political force for many reasons. First, it is universal; we are told everything on Earth is threatened. Second, it invokes the two most powerful human motivators: fear and guilt. We fear driving our car will kill our grandchildren, and we feel guilty for doing it.

Third, there is a powerful convergence of interests among key elites that support the climate “narrative.” Environmentalists spread fear and raise donations; politicians appear to be saving the Earth from doom; the media has a field day with sensation and conflict; science institutions raise billions in grants, create whole new departments, and stoke a feeding frenzy of scary scenarios; business wants to look green, and get huge public subsidies for projects that would otherwise be economic losers, such as wind farms and solar arrays. Fourth, the Left sees climate change as a perfect means to redistribute wealth from industrial countries to the developing world and the UN bureaucracy.

So we are told carbon dioxide is a “toxic” “pollutant” that must be curtailed, when in fact it is a colorless, odorless, tasteless, gas and the most important food for life on earth. Without carbon dioxide above 150 parts per million, all plants would die.

Human Emissions Saved Planet

Over the past 150 million years, carbon dioxide had been drawn down steadily (by plants) from about 3,000 parts per million to about 280 parts per million before the Industrial Revolution. If this trend continued, the carbon dioxide level would have become too low to support life on Earth. Human fossil fuel use and clearing land for crops have boosted carbon dioxide from its lowest level in the history of the Earth back to 400 parts per million today.

At 400 parts per million, all our food crops, forests, and natural ecosystems are still on a starvation diet for carbon dioxide. The optimum level of carbon dioxide for plant growth, given enough water and nutrients, is about 1,500 parts per million, nearly four times higher than today. Greenhouse growers inject carbon-dioxide to increase yields. Farms and forests will produce more if carbon-dioxide keeps rising.

We have no proof increased carbon dioxide is responsible for the earth’s slight warming over the past 300 years. There has been no significant warming for 18 years while we have emitted 25 per cent of all the carbon dioxide ever emitted. Carbon dioxide is vital for life on Earth and plants would like more of it. Which should we emphasize to our children?

Celebrate Carbon Dioxide

The IPCC’s followers have given us a vision of a world dying because of carbon-dioxide emissions. I say the Earth would be a lot deader with no carbon dioxide, and more of it will be a very positive factor in feeding the world. Let’s celebrate carbon dioxide.

Patrick Moore ([email protected]) was a cofounder and leader of Greenpeace for 15 years. He is now chair and spokesman for Allow Golden Rice.
 

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
^^^ Oh, shuddup, A.W. If Al Gore doesn't believe it - it's gotta be bull pucky.

"Carbon dioxide is vital for life on Earth and plants would like more of it. Which should we emphasize to our children?"

There you go. It has been mentioned before on this thread that nursery operations often pump additional CO2 into their greenhouses to get their plants to grow bigger/faster.

Wanna fight atmospheric CO2? Then 'twould seem pretty obvious the logical thing to do would be to plant more trees/shrubs, etc., innit.

Of course, the latter will never happen - or even be seen as an option...because doing that wouldn't supply TRILLIONS of dollars worth of revenue to the world's governments in the form of taxes, fines and penalties, would it. Not to mention the fact that, logically speaking, it very likely would put the brakes on whatever part CO2 is supposedly playing in GW/CC. How could it not???

'Would hafta be c-a-r-e-f-u-l though. 'Wouldn't wanna bring on another Ice Age by taking TOO MUCH CO2 out of the atmosphere...would we.
 

Pete McCluskey.

Lifetime Supporter
I remember in school we were taught the Carbon Cycle, that plants took carbon from the atmosphere and through the process of photosynthesis created Oxygen. And without carbon all plants would die.
Today our children are taught that carbon is bad. And a terrible pollutant. Just saying.
 

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
I remember in school we were taught the Carbon Cycle, that plants took carbon from the atmosphere and through the process of photosynthesis created Oxygen. And without carbon all plants would die.
Today our children are taught that carbon is bad. And a terrible pollutant. Just saying.


Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeh...you obviously belong in a 'home', Pete!!! :laugh3:
 

Pete McCluskey.

Lifetime Supporter
I was also taught that butter was good for you, then "Science" came along and said butter was bad for us and we should eat margarine. Of course since then "Science" has said the chemicals in margarine are really bad and butter is much better for you!!
Is it any wonder I wander around the place looking confused? Maybe I should be committed Larry.
 

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
I was also taught that butter was good for you, then "Science" came along and said butter was bad for us and we should eat margarine. Of course since then "Science" has said the chemicals in margarine are really bad and butter is much better for you!!
Is it any wonder I wander around the place looking confused? Maybe I should be committed Larry.


You and I both for exactly the same reasons, sir.

BTW, the "butter" thing is exactly why wifey and I went back to butter (and a number of other things) several years ago...and why I don't pay much attention to "researchers"/"scientists"/"experts" findings on anything anymore. (I'm sure "follow the money" would likely apply to all of 'em.)
 

Pete McCluskey.

Lifetime Supporter
Pickering should be a WOGG.


HE NOT ONLY TWEAKS THE GRAPHS, BUT A FEW NIPPLES TOO!

As reported here last year, be prepared for an IPCC barrage of climate misinformation as the pivotal Paris global warming conference draws near. From the ridiculous report that walruses were being forced to mate on rocky foreshores to the Himalayas becoming bereft of snow it’s been a mix of incompetence and outright lies from the IPCC.
And now the UN is threatening to declare Australia’s Great Barrier Reef in danger and that it risks being delisted from its World Heritage status.
All this bullshit from none other than IPCC Chairman, Indian railway worker, Rajendra Pachauri (pictured) who has just resigned following allegations of sexual harassment
Australia is in the UN’s crosshairs because Tony Abbott is seen as a warming "denier" but, instead of telling the UN to get stuffed, Abbott decided to kick in another $100 million to prop up our expensive James Cook’s marine biologists who are addicted to floating around our healthy reefs trying to find something wrong.
Jon Brodie, chief research scientist at TropWater, the water quality research unit attached to the infamously green James Cook University, said, “The money announced is nowhere near enough to do what is required to protect the reef." Protect the reef from marine post-graduate Lefties, more like it!
Without a perceived reef problem these marine leeches have no jobs, so their role in life is to concoct problems that have never actually existed. “Problems” like water quality and the Crown of Thorns starfish.
The reef has survived run-offs from a thousand waterways for a billion years, it has also withstood cyclical attacks from the Crown of Thorns and the most identifiable of reef fish, the Parrot varieties, that also eat coral turning it into fine sand.
Not to mention the regular cyclones that mercilessly batter the reef.
Without these so-called “threats” our reefs would no longer exist. Old coral is destroyed to make way for new strains in the same way our bush is re-invigorated by fire to allow for new growth.
Green gophers cite possible “extinction of a species” as a weapon in fighting for further increases in their budgets.
The mere suggestion that our reefs could be healthy is monetary sacrilege to a Green gopher!
The truth is that 99 per cent of all species that ever lived in the sea or on land have already become extinct, and have made way for more adaptable, stronger species... I think it's called survival of the fittest, or evolution or something.
The UN’s IPCC alarmist fraudsters are beating the same drum... if you can put fear into the hearts of the simple minded who care about things like reefs, there’s a veritable fortune to be made in carbon credits, with the IPCC copping a cool 10 percent of all carbon taxes levied by compliant Left governments.
The fact is the plant food C02 produced by man has almost no effect on the Earth’s temperature. Both polar caps are increasing and Europe and North America have experienced five years of record low temperatures.
To suggest the contribution of man-made C02 is anything more than piddling when compared to that of the oceans, the Sun and volcanoes, is crazy! But there you go, the IPCC’s warming conference is to be held in Paris in December this year. How crazy is that when Europe will be copping its sixth consecutive year of record freezing temperatures?
It would be wonderful if the IPCC’s dishonest forecasts were even remotely correct because warming produces fertility with massive increases in food production, employment and third-world prosperity.
It’s the cold that kills.
News - PREPARE FOR A LITANY OF LIES AS PARIS DRAWS NEAR - The Pickering Post
 

Pete McCluskey.

Lifetime Supporter
Pickering should be a WOGG.


HE NOT ONLY TWEAKS THE GRAPHS, BUT A FEW NIPPLES TOO!

As reported here last year, be prepared for an IPCC barrage of climate misinformation as the pivotal Paris global warming conference draws near. From the ridiculous report that walruses were being forced to mate on rocky foreshores to the Himalayas becoming bereft of snow it’s been a mix of incompetence and outright lies from the IPCC.
And now the UN is threatening to declare Australia’s Great Barrier Reef in danger and that it risks being delisted from its World Heritage status.
All this bullshit from none other than IPCC Chairman, Indian railway worker, Rajendra Pachauri who has just resigned following allegations of sexual harassment
Australia is in the UN’s crosshairs because Tony Abbott is seen as a warming "denier" but, instead of telling the UN to get stuffed, Abbott decided to kick in another $100 million to prop up our expensive James Cook’s marine biologists who are addicted to floating around our healthy reefs trying to find something wrong.
Jon Brodie, chief research scientist at TropWater, the water quality research unit attached to the infamously green James Cook University, said, “The money announced is nowhere near enough to do what is required to protect the reef." Protect the reef from marine post-graduate Lefties, more like it!
Without a perceived reef problem these marine leeches have no jobs, so their role in life is to concoct problems that have never actually existed. “Problems” like water quality and the Crown of Thorns starfish.
The reef has survived run-offs from a thousand waterways for a billion years, it has also withstood cyclical attacks from the Crown of Thorns and the most identifiable of reef fish, the Parrot varieties, that also eat coral turning it into fine sand.
Not to mention the regular cyclones that mercilessly batter the reef.
Without these so-called “threats” our reefs would no longer exist. Old coral is destroyed to make way for new strains in the same way our bush is re-invigorated by fire to allow for new growth.
Green gophers cite possible “extinction of a species” as a weapon in fighting for further increases in their budgets.
The mere suggestion that our reefs could be healthy is monetary sacrilege to a Green gopher!
The truth is that 99 per cent of all species that ever lived in the sea or on land have already become extinct, and have made way for more adaptable, stronger species... I think it's called survival of the fittest, or evolution or something.
The UN’s IPCC alarmist fraudsters are beating the same drum... if you can put fear into the hearts of the simple minded who care about things like reefs, there’s a veritable fortune to be made in carbon credits, with the IPCC copping a cool 10 percent of all carbon taxes levied by compliant Left governments.
The fact is the plant food C02 produced by man has almost no effect on the Earth’s temperature. Both polar caps are increasing and Europe and North America have experienced five years of record low temperatures.
To suggest the contribution of man-made C02 is anything more than piddling when compared to that of the oceans, the Sun and volcanoes, is crazy! But there you go, the IPCC’s warming conference is to be held in Paris in December this year. How crazy is that when Europe will be copping its sixth consecutive year of record freezing temperatures?
It would be wonderful if the IPCC’s dishonest forecasts were even remotely correct because warming produces fertility with massive increases in food production, employment and third-world prosperity.
It’s the cold that kills.
News - PREPARE FOR A LITANY OF LIES AS PARIS DRAWS NEAR - The Pickering Post
 

Pete McCluskey.

Lifetime Supporter
I have no idea how that got posted twice...sorry. However President Obama is on record on several occasions saying that ocean levels will rise because of global warming.
I just heard he has bought a waterfront mansion in Hawaii. Can anyone confirm that?
 

Doug S.

The protoplasm may be 72, but the spirit is 32!
Lifetime Supporter
I just heard he has bought a waterfront mansion in Hawaii. Can anyone confirm that?

Why not...it's where he was born, right :poke: ?

Let's just hope it's high enough above sea level that it won't get washed away when we melt all our glaciers and the ocean levels rise a million feet :dead:

He'll also get lifelong protection from our Secret Service department, too...as well as the other perks that former POTUS get.

AFAIK most of our POTUS do not get rich while they are in office (Hillary says the Clinton years left them in debt...I'm sure there are MANY on here who will not believe that just because it came from her). Hower, former POTUS are in very high demand on the lecture/speech circuits and can demand very high $$$$$ for their presentations, so they make up for it after they are out of office. Of course, Gee-Dub, who can't talk his way out of a wet paper bag, doesn't need the lecture/speech circuit $$, he's got all the $$$$ he needs from the oil companies he has in his back pocket b/c of the preferential treatment he gave them while in office...

...but, hey, that's a topic for yet another of our conversations. Back to global climate change!!

Cheers!

Doug
 
Last edited:

Pete McCluskey.

Lifetime Supporter
Don Beyer says 7,000 Americans died from climate change events in 2014

By Warren Fiske on Monday, March 23rd, 2015 at 11:23 a.m.

After a long career as a car dealer, lieutenant governor and ambassador, Democrat Don Beyer was elected to the U.S. of House Representatives last year with a focus on protecting the planet against climate change.

Beyer, D-8th, reiterated his goal in a March 4 column for the Falls Church News-Press, calling global warming the "existential crisis of our generation, and of course the preeminent environmental issue."

"More than 7,000 Americans lost their lives to climate change-fueled events last year," he wrote.

Beyer posted a similar statement on his congressional website on Feb. 4, saying climate change caused "almost 7,000" U.S. deaths last year. We wondered whether his claim is correct and asked for the source of Beyer’s information.

Thomas Scanlon, a spokesman for Beyer, said the congressman’s office had made a mistake about the 7,000 deaths. "That number should be globally, not just in the United States," he emailed. "We made an error in editing this column for FCNP."

That said, we wondered if there was even proof that 7,000 worldwide deaths were caused by climate change last year. Scanlon referred us to a two-page report on global warming issued in January by the American Academy of Actuaries. It said "global natural loss events" caused 7,700 fatalities last year.

The academy attributed the number to Munich RE, a global insurance company based in Germany that issues an annual report on worldwide losses from natural catastrophes. In a study released in January, the company said 7,700 deaths were caused by global disasters -- including earthquakes, storms, floods, landslides, drought, extreme temperatures and wildfires.

But Munich RE doesn’t assess whether whether the natural catastrophes -- resulting in $110 billion in financial losses last year -- were caused by climate change.

"We do not have the ability to identify the direct impact of global warming on fatalities caused by natural catastrophes, other than to say any fatality caused by the earthquake peril are not due to global warming," emailed Peter Hoeppe, Munich RE’s head of geo risks research. "Our data indicate an upward trend in regard to losses from weather catastrophes which, over time, have increased in both frequency and severity."

Of the 7,700 deaths, Munich RE estimated 850 were caused by earthquakes. The remaining 6,850 deaths, the company wrote, were caused by "weather-related" events.

While there’s no precise way to measure the number of deaths caused by global warming, we should note that many experts believe it will be the root of many fatalities in coming decades. The World Health Organization predicts that an additional 250,000 people -- largely in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa -- will die annually between 2030 and 2050 because of conditions caused or exacerbated by climate change.

Our ruling

Beyer wrote, "More than 7,000 Americans lost their lives to climate change-fueled events last year." The congressman lacks documentation and admits he got his facts wrong. That makes our work easy: We rate Beyer’s statement False.
 
Back
Top