Scientists admit climate models are junk
- Thread starter Spike
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 13,507
- Reaction score
- 6,229
- Points
- 113
And the constantly increasing flow of pollution - industrial waste of one form or another - from our cities, highways, factories around the world have zero effect on the climate or the ozone layer. You are sure of that.
But that's not an assumption, sooo....
I can't prove it. But yeah, I'm pretty sure that any effects are minimal and temporary. As will be our presence here......we are a miniscule speck of dust on the timeline of the earth. Pretty damned arrogant to assume we would be able to destroy it when asteroids and meteors couldn't. Here's the thing about warmists.....they aren't really concerned about the "planet", they're concerned about themselves. Don't be Tibs, we're all just Bozo's on this bus and it's nearing the end of the road anyhow.
What has zero effect is if the United States would cease all Co2 emissions, which would mean you roller skating to work, nothing would change. The earth continues on its course.
Since the Industrial Revolution some 100+ years, man has emitted a scant 120ppm Co2 into the atmosphere. If you cant put it in perspective, thats parts per million....that's like your $120 to my $1000000.
I oft wondered if that extra 120ppm was not there, how much our lives and the Earths climate would be different.
Btw... you forgot to list cow farts.. Must do something about them cow farts. Surprised PETA hasn't used the global warming farce as a way to promote vegan.
Oh wait...a veggie diet makes you fart more. Kill all vegans and help save the planet.
The global warming hoax is an ideal means by which to help achieve the global distribution of wealth. NATO, the IPCC, Obama all in on it.
Obamas main goal was to knock down the US a few pegs. To spread the weath nationally and globally. No more US exceptionalism, because of Americs is why third world countries exist.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...-we-redistribute-worlds-wealth-climate-policy
Last edited:
Winner winner chicken dinner...... follow the money in everything Liberal and you will find the true objective.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 9,583
- Reaction score
- 5,866
- Points
- 113
Considering the lengths that the warmists have gone to to try and find correlations and failed, yeah pretty sure the facts line up with my instincts.
To follow this up, there is more in today's news.
Democratic AGs, climate change groups colluded on prosecuting dissenters, emails show
In the hours before they took the stage for their March 29 press conference, Democratic attorneys general received a secret briefing from two top environmentalists on pursuing climate change dissenters.
Peter Frumhoff of the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Climate Accountability Institute’s Matt Pawa spent 45 minutes each providing talking points behind the scenes on “the imperative of taking action now” and “climate change litigation,” according to a cache of emails released over the weekend by the free market Energy & Environmental Legal Institute.
For climate change groups, the New York press event was the culmination of four years of planning and advocacy in support of an explosive proposition: using the legal system to link fossil fuel firms and others challenging the catastrophic global warming consensus to fraud and even racketeering, the emails and other documents show.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/17/democratic-ags-climate-change-groups-colluded-on-p/
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 24,914
- Reaction score
- 11,537
- Points
- 113
Climate Change is not science, it is pure politics.
repeat that
Global Warming and Climate Change are both political terms created by the same people to promote the exact same political fraud. Their “solutions” all involve moving large amounts of money from producers into the hands of beggars. It's Marxist wealth re-distribution, always has been. It's Communism.
No wonder Communist loving Berniebots gobble this **** up by the shovel load
Karl Marx: Failed Solution to Capitalism's Excesses
The starting point for Marxist philosophy, and the basis of Das Kapital, is the observation that, in general, the world revolves on a capitalist economy wherein people with money hire people without money to make things and provide services. Marx observed that capitalism is self-defeating and predicted that class distinctions would become wider and wider. He proposed that capitalism should be replaced with a system where work is performed for the common good rather than for money provided by a privileged class—in other words, he proposed communism. (Sounds just like Bernie)
He believed that virtually everything had to change, and he entertained little doubt that his ideal system could only come about by jettisoning everything valued by Western society. He further proposed that this new system should be implemented by means of a revolution at the grass-roots level of society, or the proletariat, as he called it. (Sounds just like Bernie)
Marx preached collective action and suppressed individuality. Despite his religious background, Marx had no use for formal religion; to him it was just more suppressive ideology in a different form, designed to keep the lower classes in subjection. (Sounds just like Bernie)
Marx's anger and bitterness spilled over into his writings and swayed fellow radicals to take up the cause. Marx and Engels were both superb polemicists. Though the two men were never able to accomplish the social and economic revolution they advocated. (Sounds just like Bernie)
Marx believed that the problem with the socialism of his day was that it did not deal with economic issues. He proposed that his new (communist) economic system, which called for redistribution of wealth, was more equitable. (Sounds just like Bernie)
http://www.vision.org/visionmedia/biography-karl-marx/598.aspx
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 9,583
- Reaction score
- 5,866
- Points
- 113
From Weather Channel founder John Coleman - http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...-weather-channel-editorials-debates/83349848/
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 18,601
- Reaction score
- 29,975
- Points
- 113
- Location
- The nearest Steelers bar.
The benefit of time is that we can evaluate the projections vs. reality and determine the reliability of climate projections. The data show that between 1970 and 1998, the climate most certainly warmed, and warmed noticeably. However, over the past 17 years (1998 to 2015), the temperatures have remained almost static, with no measurable increase.
First, 1970 to 2015 (Hadcrut 3 global mean):
A closer look at 1998 to 2015 (Hadcrut 3 global mean):
Were the warmists justified regarding their concerns as of 1998? It seems so.
Are those concerns/warnings still justified? I say no. Well, rather, the data say no.
First, 1970 to 2015 (Hadcrut 3 global mean):
A closer look at 1998 to 2015 (Hadcrut 3 global mean):
Were the warmists justified regarding their concerns as of 1998? It seems so.
Are those concerns/warnings still justified? I say no. Well, rather, the data say no.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 24,914
- Reaction score
- 11,537
- Points
- 113
If you seen one chicken little, you've seen them all
Enviro Predictions From Earth Day 1970
Kenneth Watt, an ecologist, predicted in 1970 that there would be no more oil in the future. Watt wasn’t the only one who thought the world’s oil was peaking— but he was wrong. In fact, today there is an oil glut, leading to cheap prices. Part of the reason for that is the boom of fracking in the United States,
From predicting the end of civilization to classic worries about peak oil, here are seven environmentalist predictions that were just flat out wrong.
1: “Civilization Will End Within 15 Or 30 Years”
Harvard biologist Dr. George Wald warned shortly before the first Earth Day in 1970 that civilization would soon end “unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” Three years before his projection, Wald was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine.
Despite his assistance to a communist government, civilization still exists. The percentage of Americans who are concerned about environmental threats has fallen as civilization failed to end by environmental catastrophe.
2: “100-200 Million People Per Year Will Be Starving To Death During The Next Ten Years”
Stanford professor Dr. Paul Ehrlich declared in April 1970 that mass starvation was imminent. His dire predictions failed to materialize as the number of people living in poverty has significantly declined and the amount of food per person has steadily increased, despite population growth. The world’s Gross Domestic Product per person has immeasurably grown despite increases in population.
Ehrlich is largely responsible for this view, having co-published “The Population Bomb” with The Sierra Club in 1968. The book made a number of claims including that millions of humans would starve to death in the 1970s and 1980s, mass famines would sweep England leading to the country’s demise, and that ecological destruction would devastate the planet causing the collapse of civilization.
3: “Population Will Inevitably And Completely Outstrip Whatever Small Increases In Food Supplies We Make”
Paul Ehrlich also made the above claim in 1970, shortly before an agricultural revolution that caused the world’s food supply to rapidly increase.
Ehrlich has consistently failed to revise his predictions when confronted with the fact that they did not occur, stating in 2009 that “perhaps the most serious flaw in The Bomb was that it was much too optimistic about the future.”
4: “Demographers Agree Almost Unanimously … Thirty Years From Now, The Entire World … Will Be In Famine”
Environmentalists in 1970 truly believed in a scientific consensus predicting global famine due to population growth in the developing world, especially in India.
“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions,” Peter Gunter, a professor at North Texas State University, said in a 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness.”By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”
India, where the famines were supposed to begin, recently became one of the world’s largest exporters of agricultural products and food supply per person in the country has drastically increased in recent years. In fact, the number of people in every country listed by Gunter has risen dramatically since 1970.
5: “In A Decade, Urban Dwellers Will Have To Wear Gas Masks To Survive Air Pollution”
Life magazine stated in January 1970 that scientist had “solid experimental and theoretical evidence” to believe that “in a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching Earth by one half.”
Despite the prediction, air quality has been improving worldwide, according to the World Health Organization. Air pollution has also sharply declined in industrialized countries. Carbon dioxide (CO2), the gas environmentalists are worried about today, is odorless, invisible and harmless to humans in normal amounts.
6: “Childbearing [Will Be] A Punishable Crime Against Society, Unless The Parents Hold A Government License”
David Brower, the first executive director of The Sierra Club made the above claim and went on to say that “[a]ll potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.” Brower was also essential in founding Friends of the Earth and the League Of Conservation Voters and much of the modern environmental movement.
Brower believed that most environmental problems were ultimately attributable to new technology that allowed humans to pass natural limits on population size. He famously stated before his death in 2000 that “all technology should be assumed guilty until proven innocent” and repeatedly advocated for mandatory birth control.
Today, the only major government to ever get close to his vision has been China, which ended its one-child policy last October.
7: “By The Year 2000 … There Won’t Be Any More Crude Oil”
On Earth Day in 1970 ecologist Kenneth Watt famously predicted that the world would run out of oil saying, “You’ll drive up to the pump and say, ‘Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, ‘I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’”
http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/22/7...rom-earth-day-1970-that-were-just-dead-wrong/
Enviro Predictions From Earth Day 1970
Kenneth Watt, an ecologist, predicted in 1970 that there would be no more oil in the future. Watt wasn’t the only one who thought the world’s oil was peaking— but he was wrong. In fact, today there is an oil glut, leading to cheap prices. Part of the reason for that is the boom of fracking in the United States,
From predicting the end of civilization to classic worries about peak oil, here are seven environmentalist predictions that were just flat out wrong.
1: “Civilization Will End Within 15 Or 30 Years”
Harvard biologist Dr. George Wald warned shortly before the first Earth Day in 1970 that civilization would soon end “unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” Three years before his projection, Wald was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine.
Despite his assistance to a communist government, civilization still exists. The percentage of Americans who are concerned about environmental threats has fallen as civilization failed to end by environmental catastrophe.
2: “100-200 Million People Per Year Will Be Starving To Death During The Next Ten Years”
Stanford professor Dr. Paul Ehrlich declared in April 1970 that mass starvation was imminent. His dire predictions failed to materialize as the number of people living in poverty has significantly declined and the amount of food per person has steadily increased, despite population growth. The world’s Gross Domestic Product per person has immeasurably grown despite increases in population.
Ehrlich is largely responsible for this view, having co-published “The Population Bomb” with The Sierra Club in 1968. The book made a number of claims including that millions of humans would starve to death in the 1970s and 1980s, mass famines would sweep England leading to the country’s demise, and that ecological destruction would devastate the planet causing the collapse of civilization.
3: “Population Will Inevitably And Completely Outstrip Whatever Small Increases In Food Supplies We Make”
Paul Ehrlich also made the above claim in 1970, shortly before an agricultural revolution that caused the world’s food supply to rapidly increase.
Ehrlich has consistently failed to revise his predictions when confronted with the fact that they did not occur, stating in 2009 that “perhaps the most serious flaw in The Bomb was that it was much too optimistic about the future.”
4: “Demographers Agree Almost Unanimously … Thirty Years From Now, The Entire World … Will Be In Famine”
Environmentalists in 1970 truly believed in a scientific consensus predicting global famine due to population growth in the developing world, especially in India.
“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions,” Peter Gunter, a professor at North Texas State University, said in a 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness.”By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”
India, where the famines were supposed to begin, recently became one of the world’s largest exporters of agricultural products and food supply per person in the country has drastically increased in recent years. In fact, the number of people in every country listed by Gunter has risen dramatically since 1970.
5: “In A Decade, Urban Dwellers Will Have To Wear Gas Masks To Survive Air Pollution”
Life magazine stated in January 1970 that scientist had “solid experimental and theoretical evidence” to believe that “in a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching Earth by one half.”
Despite the prediction, air quality has been improving worldwide, according to the World Health Organization. Air pollution has also sharply declined in industrialized countries. Carbon dioxide (CO2), the gas environmentalists are worried about today, is odorless, invisible and harmless to humans in normal amounts.
6: “Childbearing [Will Be] A Punishable Crime Against Society, Unless The Parents Hold A Government License”
David Brower, the first executive director of The Sierra Club made the above claim and went on to say that “[a]ll potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.” Brower was also essential in founding Friends of the Earth and the League Of Conservation Voters and much of the modern environmental movement.
Brower believed that most environmental problems were ultimately attributable to new technology that allowed humans to pass natural limits on population size. He famously stated before his death in 2000 that “all technology should be assumed guilty until proven innocent” and repeatedly advocated for mandatory birth control.
Today, the only major government to ever get close to his vision has been China, which ended its one-child policy last October.
7: “By The Year 2000 … There Won’t Be Any More Crude Oil”
On Earth Day in 1970 ecologist Kenneth Watt famously predicted that the world would run out of oil saying, “You’ll drive up to the pump and say, ‘Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, ‘I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’”
http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/22/7...rom-earth-day-1970-that-were-just-dead-wrong/
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 9,394
- Reaction score
- 6,217
- Points
- 113
He better hurry, the bad guys are makin' moves as we speak and Exxon Mobile is the first to be targeted.
The New York attorney general has begun an investigation of Exxon Mobil to determine whether the company lied to the public about the risks of climate change or to investors about how such risks might hurt the oil business.
According to people with knowledge of the investigation, Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman issued a subpoena Wednesday evening to Exxon Mobil, demanding extensive financial records, emails and other documents.
The investigation focuses on whether statements the company made to investors about climate risks as recently as this year were consistent with the company’s own long-running scientific research.
http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0LE...nts.html/RK=0/RS=tJZCBLH1NnKiRjK0KLk3EpLVl5Q-
HOUSTON, April 15 (Reuters) - A coalition of U.S. state attorneys general received guidance from well-known climate scientists and environmental lawyers in March as some of them opened investigations into Exxon Mobil for allegedly misleading the public about climate change risks, documents seen by Reuters showed.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-sta...0NG9yBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwM3BHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg--
California’s attorney general is investigating Exxon Mobil on whether the company lied to the public and shareholders about the risks of climate change, and whether the company’s statements over the years constitute violations of securities laws and other statutes.
The investigation is similar to one started in November by the New York attorney general, Eric T. Schneiderman, for which the company has already produced thousands of documents.
http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0LE...iry.html/RK=0/RS=GwMhey8dgumYqz1eAMJVGESGJIk-
ExxonMobil Corp. sued to block a subpoena issued last month by the attorney general of the U.S. Virgin Islands seeking almost 40 years of documents on climate change.
In his demand for records, Virgin Islands Attorney General Claude Walker said Exxon may have violated the territory's anti-racketeering law, defrauding the government and consumers with the company's statements on climate change. It is the first time a prosecutor has cited racketeering law to probe Exxon over its longtime denial of climate change and its products' role in it, according to legal authorities.
http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0LE...e-walker/RK=0/RS=ftTxfKZHuPcEAoR30TruEmVNeGg-
I'll give them Libtards credit, they know how to bring the heat, even if there's no fire.
I hope those emails and such weren't stored on servers like Hillary's or hard driveso that have been wiped and repurposed.
How dare you doubt or deny...its science.
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2014
- Messages
- 5,307
- Reaction score
- 4,795
- Points
- 113
I 100% agree that the chicken little rhetoric that global scientists use is hurting their message.
The hypocrisy of the left to condemn Trump for "hatemongering" and his extreme views of racism and immigration while SIMULTANEOUSLY pandering to the extremism of global climate change like it's a catastrophic event is just crazy. I can't explain it and neither can Tibs (who represents all things liberal here).
Those "scientific" proclamations from 1970 prove exactly the kind of true scientific skepticism that should be healthy in our society but is no longer accepted.
As a secular conservative that believes in global warming, gun restrictions and is pro-choice, I find it hard to continue to pander to the liberal thinking on climate change when they use it for such political ends and wealth distributions. I also don't nearly think it's as extreme or earth shattering as they predict. Will it affect peoples from around the world? Of course. Can it be avoided? No. But my feeling is always we are an adaptive species that will die and regrow and control our environment because we always have - for good or bad.
We will adapt. We will move/migrate. And for god's sake we can't just maintain the status quo when it comes to the environment like some climatologists seem to think it should be. That's the most unrealistic position of all.
The hypocrisy of the left to condemn Trump for "hatemongering" and his extreme views of racism and immigration while SIMULTANEOUSLY pandering to the extremism of global climate change like it's a catastrophic event is just crazy. I can't explain it and neither can Tibs (who represents all things liberal here).
Those "scientific" proclamations from 1970 prove exactly the kind of true scientific skepticism that should be healthy in our society but is no longer accepted.
As a secular conservative that believes in global warming, gun restrictions and is pro-choice, I find it hard to continue to pander to the liberal thinking on climate change when they use it for such political ends and wealth distributions. I also don't nearly think it's as extreme or earth shattering as they predict. Will it affect peoples from around the world? Of course. Can it be avoided? No. But my feeling is always we are an adaptive species that will die and regrow and control our environment because we always have - for good or bad.
We will adapt. We will move/migrate. And for god's sake we can't just maintain the status quo when it comes to the environment like some climatologists seem to think it should be. That's the most unrealistic position of all.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 9,583
- Reaction score
- 5,866
- Points
- 113
Why do you believe in global warming?
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2014
- Messages
- 5,307
- Reaction score
- 4,795
- Points
- 113
Well... when every temperature analysis says the last 10 years have yielded the hottest months and hottest years on record since 1880 (or something like that) and it's been pretty consistent not only here in America but elsewhere, I think we're having global warming.
We're certainly in a "up curve" on global temperatures. Now I fully admit that could be nature and it could be human and is likely (to me) a combination of both. But overpopulation is still the vast cause of resource deprivation and migration, NOT climate change, like so many liberals want us to believe.
I guess when it comes to climate change I'm in the middle. I'm certainly never going to agree with the political right that "nothing is wrong or happening", but I'm also not going to get caught up in the liberalization of the message and think catastrophic thoughts or American needs to spend billions (or trillions) to fix an unknown problem.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 9,583
- Reaction score
- 5,866
- Points
- 113
It is generally accepted, even by global warmists, that there has been no warming for almost 20 years. What do you mean by resource deprivation and migration caused by overpopulation? Just trying to understand what your think your fact base is. You seem to be mixing in a couple of debunked Malthusian premises.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 9,079
- Reaction score
- 11,814
- Points
- 113
Who is against less pollution and greater energy efficiency?
Probably no one, but that hasn't stopped many politically motivated folks from using climate/weather to further their agenda. They have done this because the very complex system will not be described closely for many, many years into the future, which means that effectively nothing is likely to be proven or disproven. Except when idiots make models that are clearly junk.
Probably no one, but that hasn't stopped many politically motivated folks from using climate/weather to further their agenda. They have done this because the very complex system will not be described closely for many, many years into the future, which means that effectively nothing is likely to be proven or disproven. Except when idiots make models that are clearly junk.
Um...how could we have hit an iceberg? They have melted, remember?
Similar threads
