Global Warming Hoax

Liberal wrote:

Skeptical wrote:
Money can buy a lot of things, things such as food, clothes, cars, concert/event tickets politicians and yes, scientists for those wanting to push an agenda.

Follow the money !

The irony of this statement is astounding!

Forget the global warming thing, the real hoax is the claim that progressive liberals are actually human beings.

nightlight88 wrote:This thread is about the global warming hoax, no sense in deflecting.

Lets see, I was responding to gomezzz and his worship of one of the high priests of the global warming cult, your post about the computer models that gomezzz brought up and jammer's introduction of the religious angle.

So what is this deflecting you're babbling about?

Jammer wrote:

Liberal wrote:

Skeptical wrote:
Money can buy a lot of things, things such as food, clothes, cars, concert/event tickets politicians and yes, scientists for those wanting to push an agenda.

Follow the money !

The irony of this statement is astounding!

Forget the global warming thing, the real hoax is the claim that progressive liberals are actually human beings.

I irony of this statement is astounding!

Paquette wrote:

nightlight88 wrote:This thread is about the global warming hoax, no sense in deflecting.

Lets see, I was responding to gomezzz and his worship of one of the high priests of the global warming cult, your post about the computer models that gomezzz brought up and jammer's introduction of the religious angle.

So what is this deflecting you're babbling about?

What does the fact that Gomezz is or is not a Christian have to do with the global warming hoax?

Liberal wrote:

Jammer wrote:

Liberal wrote:

Skeptical wrote:
Money can buy a lot of things, things such as food, clothes, cars, concert/event tickets politicians and yes, scientists for those wanting to push an agenda.

Follow the money !

The irony of this statement is astounding!

Forget the global warming thing, the real hoax is the claim that progressive liberals are actually human beings.

I irony of this statement is astounding!  

Some village is missing their idiot.  You are completely incoherent, but then again you are a progressive liberal.

Paquette wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Shortie's Lover wrote:Loved hearing Jerry Brown call out Ted Cruz on this topic.  Gov Brown is living the real effects of climate change in Cali.

Regardless of what Governor "Moonbeam" claims, the California drought hasn't been caused by climate change/global warming. In fact global warming computer modeling predicts thatCalifornia should be seeing an increase in moisture not a decrease.  

Natural weather patterns, not man-made global warming, are causing the historic drought parching California, says a study out Monday from federal scientists.

And

The study notes that this ridge — which has resulted in decreased rain and snowfall since 2011 — is almost opposite to what computer models predict would result from human-caused climate change.

The NOAA report says midwinter precipitation is projected to increase because of human-caused climate change over most of the state. Seager said a low-pressure system, not a high-pressure system, would probably form off the California coast because of climate change.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2014/12/08/california-drought-cause-noaa/20095869/

This is so typical of you global warming alarmists. They/you scold the skeptics when they use normal weather events as proof that there is no global warming but then flip and flop and infer the same trying to prove your "settled science".

And you believe the lame stream media and the very scientists that are pushing the climate change hoax? How in the world can you believe this study when they're lying to you about AGW?  

OK, how about Newsmax?

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/California-Drought-Warming/2014/12/08/id/611850/

As for believing in a NOAA study, I only put it forward to you alarmists as evidence that even your go to sources don't agree with our Resident Lesbian's assessment that "Moonbeam" Brown is living in an environmentalist's wet dream of realtime climate change, ie the drought in California. Has NOAA cooked the books on this data just as other climate researchers have falsified or changed data on polar ice, the hockey stick theory/myth, the disappearing snows of Kilamanjaro, and on and on? If so produce it or shut the fcuk up. Crikers you debate like an 8th grader.

What caused the glaciers to melt that covered a lot of the northern part of the US?

Is it safe to say archeology just might rule out the use of CO2 emitting vehicles and power plants (within the borders of what is now the US anyway) as the cause of this "global warming" event?

Is it safe to say the area now known as Hudson Bay moved south from its former position as the North Pole and also bringing the northern portion of the present US into warmer area could have affected the warming and thereby caused the glaciation to disappear?

Gomezz Adddams wrote:Crikers you debate like an 8th grader.

Remember.....He could be wrong.....

Gomezz Adddams wrote:OK, how about Newsmax?

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/California-Drought-Warming/2014/12/08/id/611850/

As for believing in a NOAA study, I only put it forward to you alarmists as evidence that even your go to sources don't agree with our Resident Lesbian's assessment that "Moonbeam" Brown is living in an environmentalist's wet dream of realtime climate change, ie the drought in California. Has NOAA cooked the books on this data just as other climate researchers have falsified or changed data on polar ice, the hockey stick theory/myth, the disappearing snows of Kilamanjaro, and on and on? If so produce it or shut the fcuk up. Crikers you debate like an 8th grader.

Of course you wouldn't make the amateur mistake of thinking that one study actually proves anything. You're smart enough to know that's not how the scientific method works. Surely you wouldn't be trying to pass this one study off as established science would you?

So you searched around and found a study that fit your needs. Any dolt can do that, there's "scientific" studies to support any hair brained idea you could come up with. In fact you don't even have to look any father than the lead author of your study. Back in 2007 he also predicted "an imminent transition to a more arid climate in southwestern North America". His own computer models contradict his claims in this study. That might be why it has met with such a sour reception from his peers.

So you see, when you said "global warming computer modeling predicts that California should be seeing an increase in moisture not a decrease" you would be every bit as wrong as Governor Moonbeam and our Resident Lesbian. You're thinking that this one measly little study constitutes "science" and proves your point but the only real, provable, scientific truth that can be found in your USA Today article is the last sentence.

Sorry, you're both wrong.

Peer-reviewed studies are divided on whether the drought can be blamed on climate change.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:OK, how about Newsmax?

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/California-Drought-Warming/2014/12/08/id/611850/

As for believing in a NOAA study, I only put it forward to you alarmists as evidence that even your go to sources don't agree with our Resident Lesbian's assessment that "Moonbeam" Brown is living in an environmentalist's wet dream of realtime climate change, ie the drought in California. Has NOAA cooked the books on this data just as other climate researchers have falsified or changed data on polar ice, the hockey stick theory/myth, the disappearing snows of Kilamanjaro, and on and on? If so produce it or shut the fcuk up. Crikers you debate like an 8th grader.

By the way, was the irony in the last two sentences intentional?

Paquette wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:OK, how about Newsmax?

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/California-Drought-Warming/2014/12/08/id/611850/

As for believing in a NOAA study, I only put it forward to you alarmists as evidence that even your go to sources don't agree with our Resident Lesbian's assessment that "Moonbeam" Brown is living in an environmentalist's wet dream of realtime climate change, ie the drought in California. Has NOAA cooked the books on this data just as other climate researchers have falsified or changed data on polar ice, the hockey stick theory/myth, the disappearing snows of Kilamanjaro, and on and on? If so produce it or shut the fcuk up. Crikers you debate like an 8th grader.

By the way, was the irony in the last two sentences intentional?

So what do you think is causing this alleged global warming? Or is it climate change or is it climate disruption?

One can never be sure since liberals change titles as often as they change their depends.

nightlight88 wrote:

Paquette wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:OK, how about Newsmax?

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/California-Drought-Warming/2014/12/08/id/611850/

As for believing in a NOAA study, I only put it forward to you alarmists as evidence that even your go to sources don't agree with our Resident Lesbian's assessment that "Moonbeam" Brown is living in an environmentalist's wet dream of realtime climate change, ie the drought in California. Has NOAA cooked the books on this data just as other climate researchers have falsified or changed data on polar ice, the hockey stick theory/myth, the disappearing snows of Kilamanjaro, and on and on? If so produce it or shut the fcuk up. Crikers you debate like an 8th grader.

By the way, was the irony in the last two sentences intentional?

So what do you think is causing this alleged global warming?  Or is it climate change or is it climate disruption?

One can never be sure since liberals change titles as often as they change their depends.

I'm pretty sure it's caused by all the mercury in the measles vaccine.

Paquette wrote:

nightlight88 wrote:

Paquette wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:OK, how about Newsmax?

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/California-Drought-Warming/2014/12/08/id/611850/

As for believing in a NOAA study, I only put it forward to you alarmists as evidence that even your go to sources don't agree with our Resident Lesbian's assessment that "Moonbeam" Brown is living in an environmentalist's wet dream of realtime climate change, ie the drought in California. Has NOAA cooked the books on this data just as other climate researchers have falsified or changed data on polar ice, the hockey stick theory/myth, the disappearing snows of Kilamanjaro, and on and on? If so produce it or shut the fcuk up. Crikers you debate like an 8th grader.

By the way, was the irony in the last two sentences intentional?

So what do you think is causing this alleged global warming?  Or is it climate change or is it climate disruption?

One can never be sure since liberals change titles as often as they change their depends.

I'm pretty sure it's caused by all the mercury in the measles vaccine.

Seriously, what do you think is the cause of 'global warming'?

nightlight88 wrote:Seriously, what do you think is the cause of 'global warming'?

There is no global warming, it's a super duper, top secret consortium of nearly every single scientist in the world who have been sworn to secrecy and threatened with having their lavishly middle class lifestyle destroyed if they don't comply. They've all vowed to kick every puppy they see and destroy God, mom, apple pie and the American way of life for... well, whatever it is that they gain from this unbelievably elaborate hoax.

Paquette wrote:

nightlight88 wrote:Seriously, what do you think is the cause of 'global warming'?

There is no global warming, it's a super duper, top secret consortium of nearly every single liberal scientist in the world who have been sworn to secrecy and threatened with having their lavishly middle class lifestyle destroyed if they don't comply. They've all vowed to kick every puppy they see and destroy God, mom, apple pie and the American way of life for... well, whatever it is that they gain from this unbelievably elaborate hoax.

I corrected your response so it was accurate...hope you don't mind.

The new green is the old red.

Darth Cheney wrote:

Paquette wrote:

nightlight88 wrote:Seriously, what do you think is the cause of 'global warming'?

There is no global warming, it's a super duper, top secret consortium of nearly every single liberal scientist in the world who have been sworn to secrecy and threatened with having their lavishly middle class lifestyle destroyed if they don't comply. They've all vowed to kick every puppy they see and destroy God, mom, apple pie and the American way of life for... well, whatever it is that they gain from this unbelievably elaborate hoax.

I corrected your response so it was accurate...hope you don't mind.

The new green is the old red.

I think that goes without saying. No real conservative would ever have anything to do with all that science malarkey.

Paquette wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:

Paquette wrote:

nightlight88 wrote:Seriously, what do you think is the cause of 'global warming'?

There is no global warming, it's a super duper, top secret consortium of nearly every single liberal scientist in the world who have been sworn to secrecy and threatened with having their lavishly middle class lifestyle destroyed if they don't comply. They've all vowed to kick every puppy they see and destroy God, mom, apple pie and the American way of life for... well, whatever it is that they gain from this unbelievably elaborate hoax.

I corrected your response so it was accurate...hope you don't mind.

The new green is the old red.

I think that goes without saying. No real conservative would ever have anything to do with all that science malarkey.

Actually, I have a science degree but not a dumb ass. Only dumb asses believe the crap they are shoveling or those that profit from the hoax. CO2 levels lag warming by 100s of years but don't let "science" get in your way of believing...hope & change!

I have no clue why some insist Algore is 100% correct  (let alone that he is honest) in his claim man and/man related activities are solely responsible for any/all climate change worldwide.

Some articles on the topic.

https://www.heartland.org/sites/default/files/7theories-web.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

http://iceagenow.info/2012/02/natural-tilts-earths-axis-ice-ages-harvard-geophysicist/

There is a very good possibility talk or mention of ice ages will enter the any discussion about climate change.  With that in mind it might be appropriate to relate what somebody once said about ice ages.  The name of that person escapes me at the present time and it is something like,  Ice ages are not always about advancing and retreating of glaciers but rather different parts of the earth occupy polar zones at different times.

Darth Cheney wrote:Actually, I have a science degree but not a dumb ass. Only dumb asses believe the crap they are shoveling or those that profit from the hoax. CO2 levels lag warming by 100s of years but don't let "science" get in your way of believing...hope & change!

You're a brave man going into the field of climate science in times like this. We need to encourage good, conservative kids to study the natural sciences so we can get a more politically balanced result.

Paquette wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:Actually, I have a science degree but not a dumb ass. Only dumb asses believe the crap they are shoveling or those that profit from the hoax. CO2 levels lag warming by 100s of years but don't let "science" get in your way of believing...hope & change!

You're a brave man going into the field of climate science in times like this. We need to encourage good, conservative kids to study the natural sciences so we can get a more politically balanced result.

No, we need to educate dumbass liberals who ingest the bullshitte put out by fatalbertgore and his minions.

nightlight88 wrote:

Paquette wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:Actually, I have a science degree but not a dumb ass. Only dumb asses believe the crap they are shoveling or those that profit from the hoax. CO2 levels lag warming by 100s of years but don't let "science" get in your way of believing...hope & change!

You're a brave man going into the field of climate science in times like this. We need to encourage good, conservative kids to study the natural sciences so we can get a more politically balanced result.

No, we need to educate dumbass liberals who ingest the bullshitte put out by fatalbertgore and his minions.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. If there were more conservatives working in the natural sciences they could step up and educate people.

Why aren't there more conservatives working in the natural sciences?

Paquette wrote:

nightlight88 wrote:

Paquette wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:Actually, I have a science degree but not a dumb ass. Only dumb asses believe the crap they are shoveling or those that profit from the hoax. CO2 levels lag warming by 100s of years but don't let "science" get in your way of believing...hope & change!

You're a brave man going into the field of climate science in times like this. We need to encourage good, conservative kids to study the natural sciences so we can get a more politically balanced result.

No, we need to educate dumbass liberals who ingest the bullshitte put out by fatalbertgore and his minions.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. If there were more conservatives working in the natural sciences they could step up and educate people.

Why aren't there more conservatives working in the natural sciences?

Your question is based on the presumption that there are not enough conservatives working in the natural sciences area. What makes you think that and how many would suit you? You phony outrage is duly noted.

nightlight88 wrote:

Paquette wrote:

nightlight88 wrote:

Paquette wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:Actually, I have a science degree but not a dumb ass. Only dumb asses believe the crap they are shoveling or those that profit from the hoax. CO2 levels lag warming by 100s of years but don't let "science" get in your way of believing...hope & change!

You're a brave man going into the field of climate science in times like this. We need to encourage good, conservative kids to study the natural sciences so we can get a more politically balanced result.

No, we need to educate dumbass liberals who ingest the bullshitte put out by fatalbertgore and his minions.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. If there were more conservatives working in the natural sciences they could step up and educate people.

Why aren't there more conservatives working in the natural sciences?

Your question is based on the presumption that there are not enough conservatives working in the natural sciences area.  What makes you think that and how many would suit you?  You phony outrage is duly noted.

A liberal mind is a terrible waste.

Paquette wrote:

nightlight88 wrote:

Paquette wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:Actually, I have a science degree but not a dumb ass. Only dumb asses believe the crap they are shoveling or those that profit from the hoax. CO2 levels lag warming by 100s of years but don't let "science" get in your way of believing...hope & change!

You're a brave man going into the field of climate science in times like this. We need to encourage good, conservative kids to study the natural sciences so we can get a more politically balanced result.

No, we need to educate dumbass liberals who ingest the bullshitte put out by fatalbertgore and his minions.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. If there were more conservatives working in the natural sciences they could step up and educate people.

Why aren't there more conservatives working in the natural sciences?

You stupid ass liberal.  There are many and I mean many conservatives who work in some area of technology including what a moron like you calls natural science.  If you were smarter than a brick wall you would know that the vast majority of these conservatives work in a company or organization that actually PRODUCES something.

There are other people with technical backgrounds that go into areas that produce NOTHING but exist solely off the funding of somebody or something else.  They study and think and produce nothing except reports that might generate more funding for them.  That is why 99% of these worthless people with STEM backgrounds come up with this gibberish.

The world would truly be much better off if there was not a single worthless progressive liberal slug in it.  You people are nothing but parasites.  But what really bothers me is that us conservatives waste one minute of our time arguing with scum like you because you are indoctrinated worthless parasites with totally closed minds.  No amount of facts or commonsense makes a difference with you - so I urge conservatives to abandon arguing with these pieces of shite and spend your time getting rid of them.

Don't work for a liberal
Don't hire a liberal
Don't buy anything from a liberal
Don't sell anything to a liberal
And for God's sake do not donate a penny to a charity that helps these scum.

nightlight88 wrote:Your question is based on the presumption that there are not enough conservatives working in the natural sciences area.  What makes you think that and how many would suit you?  You phony outrage is duly noted.

There's no presumption involved, it's a pretty well known fact. People in the natural sciences lean heavily towards the left and the applied sciences is heavily weighted with people who lean to the right.





http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-4-scientists-politics-and-religion/

Unlike that completely unhinged rant from jammer, I won't put either one down. We wouldn't be where we are without those in the applied sciences like engineering, health care etc who put science to work in the real world. But they would be totally clueless without the work of those who discover and quantify the properties they use in their work. Jammer can froth at the mouth about those who "produce nothing" but that only shows his complete ignorance of both fields.

Lets take EROS as an example. They don't "produce" anything except data. They suck off the government teat and look at pictures and write reports all day. They don't "produce" anything jammer can hold in his hand so he thinks they're worthless. But ask the farmers, ranchers, oil companies, mining companies, developers and engineers who utilize the data that EROS provides free of charge and you'll get a very different answer. Their jobs would be much more difficult and inefficient without the work of those who "exist solely off the funding" that we provide.

Ask a doctor where he would be without the pure sciences. He can look at an x-ray and use it to diagnose his patient but that wouldn't be possible without the engineers who designed the machine he uses. And those engineers wouldn't have been able to design that machine without the work of those who discovered and quantified the scientific properties of x-rays. Then ask him about those who studied genetics, bacteria, viruses, immunology and on and on.

Ask the military where they'd be without the sciences.

Anyone who says scientists "produce nothing" only show how completely ignorant they are and how pathetic our school system is. Anyone who thinks we haven't gained anything from those who "study and think and produce nothing except reports" is a dumbass of the highest order. He might want to look into the long line of scientists who developed the knowledge base that enabled the engineers to come up with the technology that allows him to display his complete and utter ignorance to the world with the click of a mouse.