Man-made global warming = Govt take care me for life

[iamnotback]

Rothschilds + Rockefeller are running the show:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/22/donald-trump-paris-climate-deal-change-open-mind

Human caused climate change is ABSOLUTELY impossible. Human caused environmental degradation happens often, but environment is not climate.

Even a nuclear winter would not be a permanent climate change. After some years or decades, the earth would resume the climate that is dictated and controlled by the Sun and the internal heat of the Earth.

We are just but little specks of dust crawling on the surface of the earth and have no where near enough impact to the thermodynamics to have any meaningful impact on the climate.

Please spread this message to the spoiled-brat Millennials

I know politics is not your interest. But you are smart enough to understand why "everything equal" is always horrific failure that leads to war and megadeath. Please read this quote and understand why you must stop teaching your friends and kids the bullshit about "the rich are evil and everything must be equal". The Ten Commandments tell us not to covet what our neighbor has (and that includes accusing every rich person of being corrupt when in fact many people get rich by hard work!). The "99% versus 1%" movement is Satan whoreship!

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama’s socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama’s plan”.. All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A…. (substituting grades for dollars – something closer to home and more readily understood by all).

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed. Could not be any simpler than that.

I had a conversation in a hotel with someone who was very much a believer in man created global warming. I began to notice a pattern to their thinking. When you test anything, you must see how it is connected to other reasoning. What emerged was a fundamental belief that government is good and there to take care of you until you die. This notion appears to be linked to those who just want to be taken care of, but not to the point that they are on welfare. They will pretend to be independent thinking individuals, but there is a core surrender of independence because they do not want to think no one is in charge. They voted for Hillary as well, and this all seems linked to this desire not to be responsible for the future in a subtle way. Perhaps it is linked to childhood when you did not have to work or cook. They just took care of you. It seems that those who believe in global warming are more likely to trust government. What happens when they wake up and discover nothing is as they thought it would be?

I am becoming deeply concerned that the United States is headed into its version of a communist revolution under the label “progressive” and the bankers, who Larry Summers has always supported, will be used as the scapegoat for Wall Street and the “rich” who have to be stripped of their liberty and their money for the “good of the people” as they always say. The United States does not look like it will be a country we can recognize by 2032 if we can even make it past 2024. The United States will most likely break apart by 2036. There are separatist movements rising in many areas from Vermont and Texas to California, who reasons they voted for Hillary not Trump justifying their departure.

The entire purpose of eliminating cash is to strip us of our assets, liberty, and to prevent bank runs. The youth, who have been brainwashed by Bernie Sanders and people like Elizabeth Warren, will turn against the older generation and enslave them if at all possible. This threatens our future with outright civil war. They will not be satisfied until they destroy the freedom of their opposition. It is starting to appear that 2036 is our date with destiny.

I saw NBA legend Kevin Garnett using the term "not progressive enough" on national TV in his condemnation of coaching great Phil Jackson (when Jackson referred to Lebron's "posse").

[1714043023]

1714043023

[1714043023]

1714043023

[Masha Sha]

There is no other path but to start to kill them. I am sorry. They are like Bagdad bob

[iamnotback]

For those who need more convincing:

http://print-humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.ca/2016/11/global-warming-climate-change-whats-it.html



    “I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
    “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”
    Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
    “The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.
    “So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming.” - Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace member.
    “Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.” - Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth.
    “The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico
    “It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.
    “Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.
    “After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.
    “The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact,” Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher.
    “I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken...Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science.” - Award Winning Physicist Dr. Will Happer, Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton University and Former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy, who has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences.
    “Nature's regulatory instrument is water vapor: more carbon dioxide leads to less moisture in the air, keeping the overall GHG content in accord with the necessary balance conditions.” – Prominent Hungarian Physicist and environmental researcher Dr. Miklós Zágoni reversed his view of man-made warming and is now a skeptic. Zágoni was once Hungary’s most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol.
    “For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.
    “Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.
    “The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil... I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” - South Afican Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.
    “Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.
    “All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead.” - Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut, served as staff physicist at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
    “Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.
    “CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.
    “The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.
    “Whatever the weather, it's not being caused by global warming. If anything, the climate may be starting into a cooling period.” Atmospheric scientist Dr. Art V. Douglas, former Chair of the Atmospheric Sciences Department at Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska, and is the author of numerous papers for peer-reviewed publications.
    “But there is no falsifiable scientific basis whatever to assert this warming is caused by human-produced greenhouse gasses because current physical theory is too grossly inadequate to establish any cause at all.” - Chemist Dr. Patrick Frank, who has authored more than 50 peer-reviewed articles.
    “The ‘global warming scare’ is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making. It has no place in the Society's activities.” - Award-Winning NASA Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker Jack Schmitt who flew on the Apollo 17 mission and formerly of the Norwegian Geological Survey and for the U.S. Geological Survey.
    “Earth has cooled since 1998 in defiance of the predictions by the UN-IPCC….The global temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade and the coldest of the millennium…which is why ‘global warming’ is now called ‘climate change.’” - Climatologist Dr. Richard Keen of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado.
    “I have yet to see credible proof of carbon dioxide driving climate change, yet alone man-made CO2 driving it. The atmospheric hot-spot is missing and the ice core data refute this. When will we collectively awake from this deceptive delusion?” - Dr. G LeBlanc Smith, a retired Principal Research Scientist with Australia’s CSIRO (The full quotes of the scientists are later in this report)

[iamnotback]

Perhaps the best explanation I have ever heard:

https://www.prageru.com/courses/left-and-right-differences/how-do-we-make-society-better-left-vs-right-5

(Sourced by CoinCube)





Edit: btw, I agree with the following, except the problem is that divorce has destroyed the benefit for men:

https://www.prageru.com/courses/life-studies/be-man-get-married

http://blog.jim.com/culture/the-false-life-plan/
http://blog.jim.com/economics/the-future-belongs-to-those-that-show-up/
http://blog.jim.com/culture/fertility/
http://blog.jim.com/culture/on-what-used-to-be-called-marriage/
http://blog.jim.com/politics/the-reason-that-women-need-to-be-subordinated-for-successful-reproduction/

Note I am not a misogynist. Actually the reason women are not given more testosterone is because their eggs are more valuable than male sperm. We must protect the women, because if a tribe only had one woman remaining, it would be in danger of extinction, but one man could easily impregnate a plurality of woman.

I also dreamed at one point of working with female programmers and that a female would be both my career peer as well as my peer in romance. But I have since learned that there is a reason that women and men are physiologically different. Women have similar average IQ but their outliers are much more rare on the upper end of the IQ curve. Females are very smart at consensus building and nurturing. Men are very smart at economics (and technology as a function in economics).

http://blog.jim.com/culture/the-ancestral-environment-of-females/#comment-183149
http://blog.jim.com/culture/the-ancestral-environment-of-females/#comment-183156

As the 160 IQ Eric S. Raymond points out in numerous blogs, these are the "damned facts" that don't feel good to admit, but are in fact reality.

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5220
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5238

Relate this phenomenon of wanting to ignore "damned facts" to following video:

https://www.prageru.com/courses/left-and-right-differences/does-it-feel-good-or-does-it-do-good-left-vs-right-2

Tangentially James A. Donald was the first person to interact with Satoshi Nakamoto when he announced Bitcoin in 2008 on the Cryptography mailing list.



Edit#2: the liberal socialism Dark Age proceeds as these brainless retards continue to foam at the mouth:

https://www.wired.com/2016/12/internet-week-99/

[protokol]

iamnotback:

Rather than writing ridiculous "gish gallops" why don't you give coherent, concise answers to posts?

For example, can you explain why the 10 warmest years in 136 years (excepting 1998) have occured since the year 2000?

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

This gif is enlightening:


http://blogs.reading.ac.uk/climate-lab-book/files/2016/05/spiral_optimized.gif

[markj113]

Global COOLING: World temperature DROPS as spikes NOT caused by man, scientists claim

http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/742289/El-Nino-La-Nina-temperature-drop-global-warming-climate-change

Truth is we will never know the truth and only time will tell, both sides of the argument have an agenda and are making cash from it.

[protokol]

Global COOLING: World temperature DROPS as spikes NOT caused by man, scientists claim

http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/742289/El-Nino-La-Nina-temperature-drop-global-warming-climate-change

Truth is we will never know the truth and only time will tell, both sides of the argument have an agenda and are making cash from it.

The Express is a British tabloid, highly biased both politically and socially, it is not a great source for this sort of thing. I haven't read the article (I will now and edit accordingly), but this sounds very suspiciously like a rehash of the recent Breitbart story (which was totally debunked). I will read the article and comment again.

I would say that although we will never know the 100% truth, there is a difference between one side having exponentially more evidence for their hypothesis than the other. We don't know the 100% truth about gravity or quantum physics effects, but they are universally accepted. The same could be for climate science, in fact the evidence so far is verging on "certain".

However I do agree that both sides are "making cash" from their opinion, but this is mainly related to the media. I believe there are many people in the petrochemical industry making billions, even though they believe that what they are doing is wrong and could damage the planet. But they wont be around to experience it, so it doesn't matter. Likewise, there are people in climate science funded by petrochemical companies who are willing to make false assumptions about research, as there are honest climate scientists who would refuse such funding to attempt unbiased research.

It's a complicated problem

EDIT: Yeah, that trashy express article is using an erroneous measurement:

Met Office Hadcrut4 data has shown about a 0.5C drop in average surface temperatures between the spring and the end of October.

- comparing the global temp in a period of less than 6 months to imply that the planet isn't warming. Any scientist will tell you that this is a far too small sample of data to predict an overlying trend. For instance take a look at this graph:



See how el nino/la nina seem to be irrelevant when you increase the sample size to an approriate amount?

[markj113]

When you are taking about global climate cycles is the 29 years of the above graph an appropriate sample size?

I would say not.

[protokol]

When you are taking about global climate cycles is the 29 years of the above graph an appropriate sample size?

I would say not.

Well it's 54 years in fact, as far as I can see. And no, it's not an ideal sample size but it beats the ~6 months sample that was in the article that you yourself just posted. So how can you possibly criticise my sample when yours is less than 1% of the length of my sample?

In fact there are temp and CO2 records going back to the mid to late 1800s, but the graph I chose has the records of El Nino/La Nina in too, which may not have existed that early on.

Still don't see how you think your 1/2 year sample trumps my 54 year one, can you elaborate on that?

[IIOII]

Global temperature changes and even wild fluctuations are a completely normal thing if you look at the history of Earth. Such effects are caused by various cosmic (ecliptic, sun activity, cosmic radiation) and earthly factors (land mass distribution, sea currents, mountains -> wind changes). The global temperature was a lot higher than today during hundreds of million years. We are currently living within a temporarily warm period within an overarching ice age.

Drawing conclusions based on temperature changes of a few decades or even centuries of modern history is not convincing at all.

[protokol]

Global temperature changes and even wild fluctuations are a completely normal thing if you look at the history of Earth. Such effects are caused by various cosmic (ecliptic, sun activity, cosmic radiation) and earthly factors (land mass distribution, sea currents, mountains -> wind changes). The global temperature was a lot higher than today during hundreds of million years. We are currently living within a temporarily warm period within an overarching ice age.

Drawing conclusions based on temperature changes of a few decades or even centuries of modern history is not convincing at all.

Your first part is true, global temp changes are normal when we look at the history of the Earth, but these changes happened over a huge timescale. What isn't normal is the incredible speed of the current warming trend, coupled with the spectacular increase in CO2 ppm during the last 150 years. That's what's worrying.

[RealityTruth]

[serbad]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLuBgZ1bgoY

[iamTom123]

Global Warming issues would always be a good topic to discuss as it is affecting us and the future generations. The problem with this issue is that though definitely changes of the weather are now appearing in many parts of the globe, the science behind this whole thing can sometimes be compromised and many advocates are getting selective of the facts they want their audience to be convinced of. One thing for sure, in the coming years we would see validation -- actual validation -- as to who is telling the whole truth on Global Warming.

[IIOII]

Global temperature changes and even wild fluctuations are a completely normal thing if you look at the history of Earth. Such effects are caused by various cosmic (ecliptic, sun activity, cosmic radiation) and earthly factors (land mass distribution, sea currents, mountains -> wind changes). The global temperature was a lot higher than today during hundreds of million years. We are currently living within a temporarily warm period within an overarching ice age.

Drawing conclusions based on temperature changes of a few decades or even centuries of modern history is not convincing at all.

Your first part is true, global temp changes are normal when we look at the history of the Earth, but these changes happened over a huge timescale. What isn't normal is the incredible speed of the current warming trend, coupled with the spectacular increase in CO2 ppm during the last 150 years. That's what's worrying.

No, your assessment is not correct. There's evidence that temperature changes occurred very rapidly in ancient times as well. This is also quite logical if you consider factors such as land mass movements which ultimately lead to the closure of sea passages and hence sudden changes in sea currents (for example the merging of the North and South American Continent). Changes in Earth ecliptic and sun activity also occur within short time spans.

In addition there are no measurement methods for assessing temperature changes on a micro timescale in the past. Research is limited to determining mean temperatures over extended periods of time. Therefore it's well possible that wild swings and rapid increases/decreases in temperature occurred in the past as well.

[Sithara007]

When you are taking about global climate cycles is the 29 years of the above graph an appropriate sample size?

I would say not.

During the past 50 years, the global temperatures have increased by more than one degree Celsius. At no point of time in the past, did the temperature increased by this much in such a short a short duration. Still believe that this global warming is a hoax?

[DooMAD]

It's almost funny that every other day, according to anonymint at least, the sky is falling in cryptoland and the end times are always nigh.  There's always a fatal flaw in the fundamental concept of crypto that only he knows how to fix, or a hostile takeover from rogue elements that only his mighty logic can save us from.  But when it comes to something real, credible and tangible, like climate change, suddenly it's all a big conspiracy and he's here to tell us we shouldn't take it seriously.  

I say almost funny, but on a serious note, we should be concerned about his mental health.  I don't know if it's too many meds, or not enough, but something isn't right there.  Literally every thread amounts to "Hey everyone I've been pondering this issue and finally have a solution that no one will find fault with because I'll just talk over them and post more links supporting my entirely myopic viewpoint so don't even try to argue because I'm always right and it's the fault of communists blah blah blah".  

Post, rinse, repeat.

Sure, the earth undoubtedly goes through cycles of perfectly natural climate change, but to seriously believe human beings have had zero influence on that is just unconstrained denial of reality and consequence.  Maybe it's not just anonymint losing the plot, but hardcore libertarians in general.  This thread sound much like the anti-vaxxer thread, in that people genuinely believe they can continue to act like selfish and greedy egomaniacs by pretending that cause and effect isn't a real thing.  News flash, your choices affect others.  

Bottom line is, you're putting others at risk by turning yourself into an incubator and carrier by not vaccinating yourself.  This seems like yet another one of those things where hardcore libertarians somehow think they can still live and function within a society but only give a shit about themselves.  Sorry, but it doesn't work like that.  Go live in a cave somewhere or find a deserted island if you're that desperate to remove yourself from the rest of civilisation.  You don't get to take all the benefits but none of the accompanying responsibility.

Same thing applies to climate change.  Things keep going the way they are, coastal towns end up underwater, unexpected heatwaves kill, freak storms increase in intensity to more dangerous levels.  People's lives are destroyed.  Libertarianism means everyone is free to make their own choices, provided those choices aren't forcing other people to lose their freedoms.  It seems some people are very quick to forget that last part.  Libertarianism doesn't mean you have permission to be a self obsessed lunatic and completely disregard society as a whole.

The simple fact is, you're too busy thinking about your own freedom to care about anyone else's.

And you think it's the millenials who are the spoiled brats?  

I'm not saying for a second that government can be trusted for all things, but someone has to keep you crackpots in check, so until someone comes up with a better solution, I'm happy for the government to take care of you (when they put you in a padded cell).

[protokol]

Global temperature changes and even wild fluctuations are a completely normal thing if you look at the history of Earth. Such effects are caused by various cosmic (ecliptic, sun activity, cosmic radiation) and earthly factors (land mass distribution, sea currents, mountains -> wind changes). The global temperature was a lot higher than today during hundreds of million years. We are currently living within a temporarily warm period within an overarching ice age.

Drawing conclusions based on temperature changes of a few decades or even centuries of modern history is not convincing at all.

Your first part is true, global temp changes are normal when we look at the history of the Earth, but these changes happened over a huge timescale. What isn't normal is the incredible speed of the current warming trend, coupled with the spectacular increase in CO2 ppm during the last 150 years. That's what's worrying.

No, your assessment is not correct. There's evidence that temperature changes occurred very rapidly in ancient times as well. This is also quite logical if you consider factors such as land mass movements which ultimately lead to the closure of sea passages and hence sudden changes in sea currents (for example the merging of the North and South American Continent). Changes in Earth ecliptic and sun activity also occur within short time spans.

In addition there are no measurement methods for assessing temperature changes on a micro timescale in the past. Research is limited to determining mean temperatures over extended periods of time. Therefore it's well possible that wild swings and rapid increases/decreases in temperature occurred in the past as well.

OK, first show me evidence that temperature changes in ancient times occurred as rapidly as they are now. Bonus points if you can tell me the CO2 ppm at the time.

Your second point doesn't make sense because you seem to have contradicted your first point. How can there be evidence for such rapid changes, if there are no measurement methods for the changes?

Pick one, and we'll discuss it.

[BADecker]

Mammoth steak. Preserved in the ice from 39,000 years ago. Readily edible.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2358695/Woolly-mammoth-frozen-Siberia-39-000-YEARS-goes-display-Tokyo-woolly.html
http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/611035/Scientists-bring-woolly-mammoth-back-LIFE-discovery
https://www.rt.com/news/200215-mammoth-moscow-yuka-lion/

That's gotta be a fast freeze to freeze something as big as a mammoth so that you could eat it after 39,000 years.

[Buffer Overflow]

Just put another CO2 releasing log on the fire. It's cold tonight.

[trollercoaster]

http://armstrongeconomics-wp.s3.amazonaws.com/2015/12/Mind-Blowing-Temperature-Fraud-At-NOAA-_-Real-Science.pdf

http://realclimatescience.com/2016/07/global-temperatures-are-mostly-fake/

The good news is the LIE of man made climate change is being exposed by nature, the bad news is it's going to get cold, the other bad news is that it has become such a touchy religious subject that it is very hard to have a civilised discussion on the topic & I don't expect that to change, they will still cling to their lie and attempt to twist it to fit and we will be blamed for man made cooling.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128045886000173

[protokol]

It would be nice if we had some proper scientists on BCT that reference actual papers, rather than a bunch of paranoid armchair experts sourcing questionable sources (often linked with fossil fuel, big oil companies).

Free speech is a wonderful thing, yet potentially very dangerous as well (especially when money is involved)

[trollercoaster]

It would be nice if we had some proper scientists on BCT that reference actual papers, rather than a bunch of paranoid armchair experts sourcing questionable sources (often linked with fossil fuel, big oil companies).

Free speech is a wonderful thing, yet potentially very dangerous as well (especially when money is involved)

Check my bottom link, feel free to purchase the paper.

[protokol]

It would be nice if we had some proper scientists on BCT that reference actual papers, rather than a bunch of paranoid armchair experts sourcing questionable sources (often linked with fossil fuel, big oil companies).

Free speech is a wonderful thing, yet potentially very dangerous as well (especially when money is involved)

Check my bottom link, feel free to purchase the paper.

Fair enough, you are one of the few posters that do reference their views with scientific papers, and I commend you for that. Do you have access to the paper itself and would be willing to post it in full so I can read it? I'm not going to pay $30 plus to access a paper.

Don't forget though that for every paper denying the causes of climate change, there are multiple more which oppose that view. It's worth noting that the paper you reference comes from a book, rather than one of the more reputable scientific journals such as Nature or the Royal Society.

[eddie13]

In 10 years we will be bitching about how the prius drivers were trying to suffocate all the world's plants..

[trollercoaster]

I do have it, but I am not willing to distribute it for free, I recommend it, but that is up to you if you decide to purchase it or not.

I haven't seen a single paper that opposes or refutes the research of Dr Abdussamatov, only dismissals without scientific basis, and only papers that show a complete lack of knowledge wrt the impacts of solar activity.

[trollercoaster]

Climate change is nothing new: https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/nature/climate-change-history-the-fall-of-empires-come-when-warming-turns-of-cooling/

[DooMAD]

Climate change is nothing new: https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/nature/climate-change-history-the-fall-of-empires-come-when-warming-turns-of-cooling/

So the graph in that article shows interglacial temperature and gives the implied conclusion that there is nothing unprecedented about the levels of CO2.  I wonder why they don't just produce a graph that actually shows the levels of CO2 if that's what they're talking about?  It might have something to do with the fact that such a graph exists and doesn't support their conclusion in the slightest.  

Source:  http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

The world clearly goes through natural cycles of cooling and warming.  There is literally zero dispute of that.  But to claim the effect hasn't been magnified by human activity is complete and willful ignorance.  The fact that they would use a tangentially related graph to imply their beliefs are accurate is only further evidence of that.

[IIOII]

Global temperature changes and even wild fluctuations are a completely normal thing if you look at the history of Earth. Such effects are caused by various cosmic (ecliptic, sun activity, cosmic radiation) and earthly factors (land mass distribution, sea currents, mountains -> wind changes). The global temperature was a lot higher than today during hundreds of million years. We are currently living within a temporarily warm period within an overarching ice age.

Drawing conclusions based on temperature changes of a few decades or even centuries of modern history is not convincing at all.

Your first part is true, global temp changes are normal when we look at the history of the Earth, but these changes happened over a huge timescale. What isn't normal is the incredible speed of the current warming trend, coupled with the spectacular increase in CO2 ppm during the last 150 years. That's what's worrying.

No, your assessment is not correct. There's evidence that temperature changes occurred very rapidly in ancient times as well. This is also quite logical if you consider factors such as land mass movements which ultimately lead to the closure of sea passages and hence sudden changes in sea currents (for example the merging of the North and South American Continent). Changes in Earth ecliptic and sun activity also occur within short time spans.

In addition there are no measurement methods for assessing temperature changes on a micro timescale in the past. Research is limited to determining mean temperatures over extended periods of time. Therefore it's well possible that wild swings and rapid increases/decreases in temperature occurred in the past as well.

OK, first show me evidence that temperature changes in ancient times occurred as rapidly as they are now. Bonus points if you can tell me the CO2 ppm at the time.

Your second point doesn't make sense because you seem to have contradicted your first point. How can there be evidence for such rapid changes, if there are no measurement methods for the changes?

Pick one, and we'll discuss it.

Could easily do, but not gonna happen, sorry. You're way too arrogant to justify any further effort for discussion.

Man-made global warming theory is activist pseudo-science. It's based on scientifically unsound extrapolation of insufficient data sets, collected under confirmation bias. I have no doubt that we'll see a dramatic shift of the scientific mainstream regarding that topic within the next 15 years.

That said, as a pure thought experiment it would be interesting to think about the opposite scenario of a global cooling. Would scientist and public leaders demand the release of more CO2 in that case?

[trollercoaster]

We have entered into a cooling period, c02 levels have been higher in the past, c02 levels lag behind increases in temperature by around 200 years.
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/mcclintock-proofnotco2-2009.pdf

[iamnotback]

...one of the more reputable scientific journals such as Nature or the Royal Society.

Which are controlled by the proponents of the junk AGW science. Wherein they obscure their lies in shitloads of technobabble, manipulated data, cherry picked data, models to fit the conclusion desired, and other forms of JUNK SCIENCE.

If you think man can control the long-term thermodynamics of Earth, you are not a scientist. Any person with even a reasonable comprehension of thermodynamics would understand it simply doesn't make any sense. Compute the mass of the oceans and tell me how man could do anything which would change the exchange of heat at any level of long-term significance? Impossible!

The long-term thermodynamics of the earth are controlled by the massive internally stored heat and the Sun. Period.

CO2 lags temperature changes because the oceans release more CO2 when they warm. The sun and flow from internally stored heat below the crust, controls the temperature of the oceans.

Please stop the nonsense. Especially please don't accuse us of being simpletons who can't understand basic thermodynamic facts.

[protokol]

Global temperature changes and even wild fluctuations are a completely normal thing if you look at the history of Earth. Such effects are caused by various cosmic (ecliptic, sun activity, cosmic radiation) and earthly factors (land mass distribution, sea currents, mountains -> wind changes). The global temperature was a lot higher than today during hundreds of million years. We are currently living within a temporarily warm period within an overarching ice age.

Drawing conclusions based on temperature changes of a few decades or even centuries of modern history is not convincing at all.

Your first part is true, global temp changes are normal when we look at the history of the Earth, but these changes happened over a huge timescale. What isn't normal is the incredible speed of the current warming trend, coupled with the spectacular increase in CO2 ppm during the last 150 years. That's what's worrying.

No, your assessment is not correct. There's evidence that temperature changes occurred very rapidly in ancient times as well. This is also quite logical if you consider factors such as land mass movements which ultimately lead to the closure of sea passages and hence sudden changes in sea currents (for example the merging of the North and South American Continent). Changes in Earth ecliptic and sun activity also occur within short time spans.

In addition there are no measurement methods for assessing temperature changes on a micro timescale in the past. Research is limited to determining mean temperatures over extended periods of time. Therefore it's well possible that wild swings and rapid increases/decreases in temperature occurred in the past as well.

OK, first show me evidence that temperature changes in ancient times occurred as rapidly as they are now. Bonus points if you can tell me the CO2 ppm at the time.

Your second point doesn't make sense because you seem to have contradicted your first point. How can there be evidence for such rapid changes, if there are no measurement methods for the changes?

Pick one, and we'll discuss it.

Could easily do, but not gonna happen, sorry. You're way too arrogant to justify any further effort for discussion.

Man-made global warming theory is activist pseudo-science. It's based on scientifically unsound extrapolation of insufficient data sets, collected under confirmation bias. I have no doubt that we'll see a dramatic shift of the scientific mainstream regarding that topic within the next 15 years.

That said, as a pure thought experiment it would be interesting to think about the opposite scenario of a global cooling. Would scientist and public leaders demand the release of more CO2 in that case?

I don't really think I'm being arrogant, I simply pointed out the contradiction in your two points and asked for evidence for your claims. As you refuse to link to any evidence I will assume you don't have any.

[protokol]

...one of the more reputable scientific journals such as Nature or the Royal Society.

Which are controlled by the proponents of the junk AGW science. Wherein they obscure their lies in shitloads of technobabble, manipulated data, cherry picked data, models to fit the conclusion desired, and other forms of JUNK SCIENCE.

If you think man can control the long-term thermodynamics of Earth, you are not a scientist. Any person with even a reasonable comprehension of thermodynamics would understand it simply doesn't make any sense. Compute the mass of the oceans and tell me how man could do anything which would change the exchange of heat at any level of long-term significance? Impossible!

The long-term thermodynamics of the earth are controlled by the massive internally stored heat and the Sun. Period.

CO2 lags temperature changes because the oceans release more CO2 when they warm. The sun and flow from internally stored heat below the crust, controls the temperature of the oceans.

Please stop the nonsense. Especially please don't accuse us of being simpletons who can't understand basic thermodynamic facts.

"Compute the mass of the oceans and tell me how man could do anything which would change the exchange of heat at any level of long-term significance? Impossible!"

Well, one way that man could change the exchange of heat would be to set off every nuclear bomb that exists in the whole world, creating a nuclear winter. Off topic yes, but it shows that what you said is certainly not impossible.

As to your claim that "The long-term thermodynamics of the earth are controlled by the massive internally stored heat and the Sun. Period.", well no, it's a well known fact that the composition of the atmosphere does have an effect on the thermodynamics of planets. Different gases in the atmosphere will cause the planet to retain more or less heat. We can see this by studying other planets.

I'm not talking about AGW here, just refuting the claims in your post. I don't see how you can be so sure of yourself, when you say things that are objectively false.

As to your rubbishing of the most reputable, peer reviewed scientific journals, do you have any evidence that they are controlled by these "proponents of junk AGW science"? You do realize that, even after peer review and publication, these journals are read and reviewed by tens of thousands of scientists across the world, who work in different fields, some of which are experts at things like statistical analysis and epistemology?

Not to mention the vast majority of opposing evidence to the AGW theory seems to come from suspect sources, sometimes linked to the fossil fuel industry or other fields which represent conflicts of interest.

If you are so sure, why not write a solid scientific paper yourself? You may not be able to get it published in a reputable journal, but I'm sure you could get it published online and reviewed.

[iamnotback]

Well, one way that man could change the exchange of heat would be to set off every nuclear bomb that exists in the whole world, creating a nuclear winter. Off topic yes, but it shows that what you said is certainly not impossible.

Read the thread. I already refuted that. It would not be a long-term effect. Man annihilates himself with a nuclear winter, then everything comes back to normal again within decades. Man can't impact the long-term thermodynamics of the Earth and the solar system. Sorry dumb ass!

well no, it's a well known fact that the composition of the atmosphere does have an effect on the thermodynamics of planets. Different gases in the atmosphere will cause the planet to retain more or less heat. We can see this by studying other planets.

You've got that backasswards. The long-term composition of the atmosphere is dictated by the thermodynamics of the earth, not vice versa. The longer explanation of why that is so is your homework assignment. I will give you one tidbit to start with, which is that CO2 lags temperature rises (and declines) by 200 - 800 years because it is the warming and cooling of the oceans that cause the release of more or less CO2 from the massive mass of the oceans. Humans can't impact enough mass to offset the effect on the oceans. The Earth is a self-stabilizing system because of this huge heatsink, and the main heat sources are internal below the crust and the Sun (by many orders-of-magnitude than anything humans can do on a long-term basis).

[protokol]

Well, one way that man could change the exchange of heat would be to set off every nuclear bomb that exists in the whole world, creating a nuclear winter. Off topic yes, but it shows that what you said is certainly not impossible.

Read the thread. I already refuted that. It would not be a long-term effect. Man annihilates himself with a nuclear winter, then everything comes back to normal again within decades. Man can't impact the long-term thermodynamics of the Earth and the solar system. Sorry dumb ass!

I'm not sure that it would take only decades for the atmosphere to return to normal, it could take much longer. I guess it has to do with your definition of "long term". Also no need for ad hominem attacks, calling me a dumb ass is not constructive to the debate. Also nothing you've said proves that man is not capable of impacting the long term temperature of the Earth.

well no, it's a well known fact that the composition of the atmosphere does have an effect on the thermodynamics of planets. Different gases in the atmosphere will cause the planet to retain more or less heat. We can see this by studying other planets.

You've got that backasswards. The long-term composition of the atmosphere is dictated by the thermodynamics of the earth, not vice versa. The longer explanation of why that is so is your homework assignment. I will give you one tidbit to start with, which is that CO2 lags temperature rises (and declines) by 200 - 800 years because it is the warming and cooling of the oceans that cause the release of more or less CO2 from the massive mass of the oceans. Humans can't impact enough mass to offset the effect on the oceans. The Earth is a self-stabilizing system because of this huge heatsink, and the main heat sources are internal below the crust and the Sun (by many orders-of-magnitude than anything humans can do on a long-term basis).

This may have been true in the past, but a lot of research suggests that CO2 both is an effect of warming, and causes it through feedback loops.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-intermediate.htm

Not to mention there are many other factors involved, such as the release of methane from permafrost which could create more serious feedback loops in regards to the greenhouse effect.

[iamnotback]

Also no need for ad hominem attacks, calling me a dumb ass is not constructive to the debate. Also nothing you've said proves that man is not capable of impacting the long term temperature of the Earth.

Because you implied (upthread) that we are not rational, when it is you who needs to do your homework. We already have.

And because you don't do your homework, you choose to destroy your free-will:

Incorrect. The Nazis (and all groups other than the Jews) practice evolutionary groupwise self-destruction. The Nazis were collectivists (go study it!).

The Jews are succeeding because their group strategy is correctly aligned with the natural laws of nature.

The Jews sit outside the collectivism and anneal with it groupwise. The is essentially what George Soros was saying when he said being amoral w.r.t. to opportunity costs is rational. This is why the Jews don't do usury to each other (they are a small group scattered across many collectivist regimes, forming a common philosophical bond or group strategy, and usury is collectivism paradigm in the large), only to the other gentiles.

Collectivism is the fault of those who participate in it. The Jews did not take away the free will of the gentiles. Even farm animals have less free will then the gentiles. No wonder the gentiles are less intelligent (on a groupwise basis) than cows, because they choose collectivism every damn time even though the Lord said not to in 1 Samuel 8.

And we will let you do it. Please continue. You will reap what you sow.

[Sithara007]

We have entered into a cooling period, c02 levels have been higher in the past, c02 levels lag behind increases in temperature by around 200 years.
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/mcclintock-proofnotco2-2009.pdf

This is pure BS. More CO2 means an increase in the temperature. Even a 4-year old kid will be able to understand that. And regarding that article, I am not even going to read it. Research has become too much politicized these days.

[protokol]

Also no need for ad hominem attacks, calling me a dumb ass is not constructive to the debate. Also nothing you've said proves that man is not capable of impacting the long term temperature of the Earth.

Because you implied (upthread) that we are not rational, when it is you who needs to do your homework. We already have.

And because you don't do your homework, you choose to destroy your free-will:

Incorrect. The Nazis (and all groups other than the Jews) practice evolutionary groupwise self-destruction. The Nazis were collectivists (go study it!).

The Jews are succeeding because their group strategy is correctly aligned with the natural laws of nature.

The Jews sit outside the collectivism and anneal with it groupwise. The is essentially what George Soros was saying when he said being amoral w.r.t. to opportunity costs is rational. This is why the Jews don't do usury to each other (they are a small group scattered across many collectivist regimes, forming a common philosophical bond or group strategy, and usury is collectivism paradigm in the large), only to the other gentiles.

Collectivism is the fault of those who participate in it. The Jews did not take away the free will of the gentiles. Even farm animals have less free will then the gentiles. No wonder the gentiles are less intelligent (on a groupwise basis) than cows, because they choose collectivism every damn time even though the Lord said not to in 1 Samuel 8.

And we will let you do it. Please continue. You will reap what you sow.

Classic Anonymint. Rather than continuing the debate, you go off on an obscure tangent about Nazis, Jews and collectivism.

You're very smart, but you're not as smart as you think you are. And your arrogance, delusions of grandeur and inability to clearly communicate your ideas will put you at a disadvantage, if your so-called "Age of Knowledge" comes to pass.

On topic, I'm currently studying for a science degree, and I've always been a very critical thinker and a huge skeptic. I've been on the fence in regards to climate change for over 15 years, but in the last couple of years my opinion has shifted to "it's probably happening and humans are probably responsible". Mainly because I've seen the vast majority of research claiming the opposite debunked, and I've seen a lot more solid evidence claiming AGW from what I consider to be credible sources.

[funkenstein]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLPkUXNRWFE

[iamnotback]

Classic Anonymint. Rather than continuing the debate, you go off on an obscure tangent about Nazis, Jews and collectivism.

That you don't understand the generative essence relevance is my fault?

https://github.com/cosmos/cosmos/issues/47#issuecomment-267836518

Why should I debate with someone who is mind-controlled and determined to choose collectivist "facts". You are free to enslave yourself. Why should I waste my time stopping you?

You're very smart, but you're not as smart as you think you are.

You Think?

And your arrogance, delusions of grandeur and inability to clearly communicate your ideas will put you at a disadvantage, if your so-called "Age of Knowledge" comes to pass.

Another Millennial asshat who thinks he has experience and disrespects his elders because he thinks he is right because his school "educated" him. Click the github above, as you have a cohort there.

On topic, I'm currently studying for a science degree, and I've always been a very critical thinker and a huge skeptic. I've been on the fence in regards to climate change for over 15 years, but in the last couple of years my opinion has shifted to "it's probably happening and humans are probably responsible". Mainly because I've seen the vast majority of research claiming the opposite debunked, and I've seen a lot more solid evidence claiming AGW from what I consider to be credible sources.

Because you are being indoctrinated by your school.

This may have been true in the past, but a lot of research suggests that CO2 both is an effect of warming, and causes it through feedback loops...

The Malthusian youth asshats always think it is different this time and ignore millions of years of documented historical information. And their idealism only causes the periodic bouts of megadeath (driven by their youthful inexperience and idealistic driven arrogance). Enjoy.

I suggest you watch the videos:

Perhaps the best explanation I have ever heard:

https://www.prageru.com/courses/left-and-right-differences/how-do-we-make-society-better-left-vs-right-5

(Sourced by CoinCube)

...

Relate this phenomenon of wanting to ignore "damned facts" to following video:

https://www.prageru.com/courses/left-and-right-differences/does-it-feel-good-or-does-it-do-good-left-vs-right-2

[iamnotback]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLPkUXNRWFE

We have entered into a cooling period, c02 levels have been higher in the past, c02 levels lag behind increases in temperature by around 200 years.
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/mcclintock-proofnotco2-2009.pdf

This is pure BS. More CO2 means an increase in the temperature. Even a 4-year old kid will be able to understand that. And regarding that article, I am not even going to read it. Research has become too much politicized these days.

You Millennials fools. I already refuted the "fact" about greenhouses cases driving the thermodynamics! The tail doesn't wag the dog:

well no, it's a well known fact that the composition of the atmosphere does have an effect on the thermodynamics of planets. Different gases in the atmosphere will cause the planet to retain more or less heat. We can see this by studying other planets.

You've got that backasswards. The long-term composition of the atmosphere is dictated by the thermodynamics of the earth, not vice versa. The longer explanation of why that is so is your homework assignment. I will give you one tidbit to start with, which is that CO2 lags temperature rises (and declines) by 200 - 800 years because it is the warming and cooling of the oceans that cause the release of more or less CO2 from the massive mass of the oceans. Humans can't impact enough mass to offset the effect on the oceans. The Earth is a self-stabilizing system because of this huge heatsink, and the main heat sources are internal below the crust and the Sun (by many orders-of-magnitude than anything humans can do on a long-term basis).

The lag is an irrefutable fact seen in 100,000s of years (if not more, I forget) of ice core data.

You fools will believe any junk "science" put out by the socialist system that is "protecting" and "educating" you. Good luck with that. Mein Kampf.

If they have "science" to tell you FruitLoops are nutritional, you'll believe that also.

[trollercoaster]

And regarding that article, I am not even going to read it. Research has become too much politicized these days.

Translation: I'm not reading that, it goes against my religious teachings.
Lmao that stupid statement contradicts what you're supposedly standing up against, I'm out of this thread anyway, see you all in the cold(er) new year.

[protokol]

@Anonymint

You see, your delusions of grandeur are causing you to profile people like me as "mind-controlled Millenial asshats" that "disrespect their elders" and have been indocrinated by some sort of NWO school of thought.

None of this is true, I'm not a millenial, I could be older than you and it's just as likely that you yourself have been indocrinated by the filter bubble that you're confined to due to your paranoia of modern society, and your internet search history.

Serious question, have you ever been diagnosed with bipolar or manic depression? Because although you're obviously a very intelligent person, your trains of thought can be very incoherent and off topic. Plus you have a tendency to rate your own opinions and theories as superior to others, without succintly explaining why.

Like I said, I've been on the fence with the whole AGW theory for years, and make a point of reading as many opposing views as possible to try and gain a balanced view on the matter. It seems to me that you've already made up your mind and refuse to even contemplate opposing points of view.

That's a dangerous mindset that can lead to indoctrination.

[iamnotback]

Serious question, have you ever been diagnosed with bipolar or manic depression?

Lol. Is that your "factual" retort? Typical totalitarian-style, leftist response.

Indeed even boomers are caught up in the leftist disease. Nevertheless the leftist disease is more pervasive amongst the Millennials.

Like I said, I've been on the fence with the whole AGW theory for years, and make a point of reading as many opposing views as possible

Stop reading and first learn to think. Without a functioning brainstem, reading can only lead you astray into confusion or indoctrination.

If you don't have an analytical mind, then you will be easy prey for AGW indoctrination. Those who are very smart, can see the generative essence of the thermodynamics. And thus immediately detect junk science. (Climate) models are not proven science. Models are theories.

I am not going to go off on some long-winded debate wherein I have to educate you on science. Please. I am not going to scream over the 1000s of voices trying to indoctrinate you with their "rational facts".  That is your responsibility to yourself. Why would I invest that much effort?? That would be entirely irrational of myself. Yet you say I am bipolar or manic for telling you frankly that you are a dufus (maybe shock, awe, and embarrassment might wake you up, but I doubt it). That is the simple of way of saying you should STFU because you don't know what the fuck you are writing about. And instead go become smarter.

Btw, CoinCube used to be on the fence. And when I told him frankly, he wised up. Why? Because he is smart.

[CoinCube]

Btw, CoinCube used to be on the fence. And when I told him frankly, he wised up. Why? Because he is smart.

Global Warming has never been an interest of mine so I honestly have not looked into the issue with any depth.

The little data I have looked into I felt was flawed. Below are my comments on that data. As I am not all that interested in the topic I am unlikely to dig further.

Recently there has been debate about a global warming pause. Apparently the temperature data both land based and satellite data have shown little global warming since 1998. There have been many attempts to explain this pause including theories about volcanic eruption and the oceans absorbing more heat.

This year there was an article in the Journal of Science arguing that there was no pause in global warming and that the data once "adjusted" revealed the previously hidden warming trend.

A chart summarizing the papers conclusions.

US scientists: Global warming pause 'no longer valid'


Now science is one of the most selective scientific journals in the world. Studies published there are supposed to be both rock solid scientifically important and subjected to extreme peer review.

This study appears to reach very shaky conclusions using adjusted data.    
  
‘HIDE THE HIATUS!’ HOW THE CLIMATE ALARMISTS ELIMINATED THE INCONVENIENT ‘PAUSE’ IN GLOBAL WARMING'

The thrust of Karl’s paper is this: that far from staying flat since 1998, global temperatures have carried on rising. It’s just that scientists haven’t noticed before because they’ve been looking in the wrong place – on land, rather than in the sea where all the real heat action is happening.

And how did Karl et al notice what everyone else has missed until now? Well, by using a specialized scientific technique called “getting your excuses in early before the Paris climate conference in December.”

Essentially, this technique involves making adjustments to the raw temperature data (sound familiar?) and discovering – lo! – that the skeptics were wrong and the alarmists were right all along.

Karl’s paper makes much of the fact that the methods used for gathering sea temperature data have changed over the years: in the old days it used to involve buckets; more recently, engine intake thermometers. Hence his excuse for these magical “adjustments”. Apparently (amazingly, conveniently), the measurements used since 1998 have been “running cold” and therefore needed correcting in a (handy) upward direction in order to show what has really been happening to global warming. Once you realize this – global warming turns out to be as real and present and dangerous as ever it was.

As the GWPF reports there are several glaring problems with Karl’s paper, starting with the fact that it contradicts all the other surface temperature data sets and also satellite data (which clearly shows no warming post 1998). Also, without any plausible explanation, Karl also chooses not to use the data from the Argo array “that is our best coherent data set on ocean temperatures.” The suspicion naturally arises that this is because if Karl had used the Argo findings, they would have made his paper look ridiculous.

Here is the satellite temperature data since 1998
Global warming has been on pause for 19 years': Study reveals Earth's temperature has remained almost CONSTANT since 1995



Now if you have two data sets and the adjusted data is giving you completely different results from the raw data one must immediately scrutinize the methods and motivations of the adjuster.
...

[protokol]

Serious question, have you ever been diagnosed with bipolar or manic depression?

Lol. Is that your "factual" retort? Typical totalitarian-style, leftist response.

Indeed even boomers are caught up in the leftist disease. Nevertheless the leftist disease is more pervasive amongst the Millennials.

Like I said, I've been on the fence with the whole AGW theory for years, and make a point of reading as many opposing views as possible

Stop reading and first learn to think. Without a functioning brainstem, reading can only lead you astray into confusion or indoctrination.

If you don't have an analytical mind, then you will be easy prey for AGW indoctrination. Those who are very smart, can see the generative essence of the thermodynamics. And thus immediately detect junk science. (Climate) models are not proven science. Models are theories.

I am not going to go off on some long-winded debate wherein I have to educate you on science. Please. I am not going to scream over the 1000s of voices trying to indoctrinate you with their "rational facts".  That is your responsibility to yourself. Why would I invest that much effort?? That would be entirely irrational of myself. Yet you say I am bipolar or manic for telling you frankly that you are a dufus (maybe shock, awe, and embarrassment might wake you up, but I doubt it). That is the simple of way of saying you should STFU because you don't know what the fuck you are writing about. And instead go become smarter.

Btw, CoinCube used to be on the fence. And when I told him frankly, he wised up. Why? Because he is smart.

You see, again you're demonstrating your arrogance by using the term "leftist" - this debate has nothing to do with political alignment, it has to do with the actual science behind global warming. The fact that people on the "left" are more likely to believe in AGW and people on the "right" are less likely to, is irrelevant to the actual science itself - you're conflating political values with scientific evidence. Not to mention, you're oversimplifying the political terms "left" and "right" to fit your own worldview.

I for instance am quite left wing when it comes to social issues, but quite right wing when it comes to economics and trade. I don't label my political stance because I think that's counterproductive, but I have quite anarchist/libertarian views, but believe there should be some sort of "minarchist" government to avoid desolating the planet through unregulated industry due to pure unadultated capitalism.

I think. A lot. That's why I said I've been on the fence for so many years, if I didn't think then I'd just accept the first thing a teacher told me in school. Stop trying to profile people and assume their personality/world view from a view sentences they write on the internet - that's a pretty ignorant way of judging people, no?

And I didn't "say" you were bipolar or manic, I simply asked. Methinks the lady doth protest too much?
 

[funkenstein]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLPkUXNRWFE

You Millennials fools. I already refuted the "fact" about greenhouses cases driving the thermodynamics! The tail doesn't wag the dog:

I'm really not sure what your point is.  

If your point is that our governments are lying to us, then yeah, I agree.

If your point is that the anthropocene age and the mass extinction we are currently living in is not really a problem, then I disagree.  

If your point is that the clear warming evidenced in disappearance of glaciers worldwide is not entirely  understood, then yeah I agree.  

If you think doubling the amount of CO2 in our tiny atmosphere in less than a century is not alarming, I disagree.  

[Sithara007]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLPkUXNRWFE

You Millennials fools. I already refuted the "fact" about greenhouses cases driving the thermodynamics! The tail doesn't wag the dog:

I'm really not sure what your point is.  

If your point is that our governments are lying to us, then yeah, I agree.

If your point is that the anthropocene age and the mass extinction we are currently living in is not really a problem, then I disagree.  

If your point is that the clear warming evidenced in disappearance of glaciers worldwide is not entirely  understood, then yeah I agree.  

If you think doubling the amount of CO2 in our tiny atmosphere in less than a century is not alarming, I disagree.  

There is no point in arguing with someone who refuse to accept the fact no matter how much proof you show to him. They are having their own reasons to downplay the effect of global warming.

[protokol]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLPkUXNRWFE

You Millennials fools. I already refuted the "fact" about greenhouses cases driving the thermodynamics! The tail doesn't wag the dog:

I'm really not sure what your point is.  

If your point is that our governments are lying to us, then yeah, I agree.

If your point is that the anthropocene age and the mass extinction we are currently living in is not really a problem, then I disagree.  

If your point is that the clear warming evidenced in disappearance of glaciers worldwide is not entirely  understood, then yeah I agree.  

If you think doubling the amount of CO2 in our tiny atmosphere in less than a century is not alarming, I disagree.  

Succinctly put, Dr Funkenstein. I probably agree with all of your points here.

But some people get the idea that certain points like these are intrinsically linked. For example, just because the government lies to us, that doesn't give climate change denial any more or less credibility. Two separate issues.

[wowanstrong]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLPkUXNRWFE

You Millennials fools. I already refuted the "fact" about greenhouses cases driving the thermodynamics! The tail doesn't wag the dog:

I'm really not sure what your point is.  

If your point is that our governments are lying to us, then yeah, I agree.

If your point is that the anthropocene age and the mass extinction we are currently living in is not really a problem, then I disagree.  

If your point is that the clear warming evidenced in disappearance of glaciers worldwide is not entirely  understood, then yeah I agree.  

If you think doubling the amount of CO2 in our tiny atmosphere in less than a century is not alarming, I disagree.  

Succinctly put, Dr Funkenstein. I probably agree with all of your points here.

But some people get the idea that certain points like these are intrinsically linked. For example, just because the government lies to us, that doesn't give climate change denial any more or less credibility. Two separate issues.

On this topic and the government and scientists are only trying to make money and distract people from more important issues. It would be better left from the consumption of hydrocarbons. But it is money and nobody wants that.

[iamnotback]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLPkUXNRWFE

You Millennials fools. I already refuted the "fact" about greenhouses cases driving the thermodynamics! The tail doesn't wag the dog:

I'm really not sure what your point is.  

If your point is that our governments are lying to us, then yeah, I agree.

If your point is that the anthropocene age and the mass extinction we are currently living in is not really a problem, then I disagree.  

If your point is that the clear warming evidenced in disappearance of glaciers worldwide is not entirely  understood, then yeah I agree.  

If you think doubling the amount of CO2 in our tiny atmosphere in less than a century is not alarming, I disagree.

There is no point in arguing with someone who refuse to accept the fact no matter how much proof you show to him. They are having their own reasons to downplay the effect of global warming.

Succinctly put, Dr Funkenstein. I probably agree with all of your points here.

But some people get the idea that certain points like these are intrinsically linked. For example, just because the government lies to us, that doesn't give climate change denial any more or less credibility. Two separate issues.

Again theories are not proof. They are a corrupt junk science when paraded as proof (and especially obnoxious when for the obvious purpose of Carbon taxes and centralization of global governance).

AGW is impossible due to Physics regardless of anything else written here, but you ignorant leftists go ahead towards your destiny. Intelligent people have more important things to do than argue with leftist idiots. It is worse than fruitless to argue with idiots. Leave them to reap what they sow because they are following a religion of intentional ignorance...

Leftism is the religion which promises the individual he/she can entirely free, protected, while protecting the right of everyone else to be entirely free and protected.

Sounds very noble right? Read on...

All religions exist to protect the society (and the family) against the defection of the individual. Traditional religions argue that subjugation of some of the "evil" whims of the individual (e.g. extra-martial affairs) is necessary to maximize the success of the society, e.g. children who grow up without their fathers usually do statistically much worse in life in various metrics, including health.

Whereas, in leftism the "evil" is not "protecting the right of everyone else to be entirely free and protected". But what does this really mean? It is double-speak. It really means to steal from production so as to enable people to abandon their moral responsibilities so that the society can be utterly destroyed by hedonism and other ramifications of offering everyone "state-supported freedom" (which is a guaranteed megadeath hell in the future).

But don't dare tell the leftist, atheists that their idealism is corrupt, bankrupt, and disingenuous. They will gut you with a knife if you dare challenge the veracity of their beloved social justice.


"Entirely free" means you can do what ever the fuck you want and there are no NATURAL LAW ramifications (the State will always support your right to do what ever the fuck you want), as long as you support the State's right to protect and economically provide for everyone's right to do what ever the fuck they want. In other words, a "free for all" clusterfuck of political correctness and stealing.

But NATURAL LAW in inviolable. No State can protect every individual from the NATURAL LAW. And if you tell people they can be entirely free (including economic freedom for everyone and every whim), then you have lied.

In short, leftism is a Tragedy of the Commons. Thus is a false religion. It lies. It is Satan's religion.

[protokol]

Again theories are not proof. They are a corrupt junk science when paraded as proof (and especially obnoxious when for the obvious purpose of Carbon taxes and centralization of global governance).

Theories are as close as we are gonna get, and the scientific theories are well established with studies/evidence etc (not just some theory some dumb cunt made up one day and said "I have a theory"). Two different definitions of theories, they shouldn't be confused. Also, Scientific proof is an impossibility, you should know this, so you should probably stop using the term. Contrary to something like a mathematical proof, which is indeed possible.

AGW is impossible due to Physics regardless of anything else written here, but you ignorant leftists go ahead towards your destiny. Intelligent people have more important things to do than argue with leftist idiots. It is worse than fruitless to argue with idiots. Leave them to reap what they sow because they are following a religion of intentional ignorance...

If it's impossible due to physics, then prove it by writing a physics paper explaining why! If you are sure of yourself then why are you wasting time on a Bitcoin forum when you could be actually proving some sort of new physical theory?

[...political social hyperbole removed]

[Sithara007]

On this topic and the government and scientists are only trying to make money and distract people from more important issues. It would be better left from the consumption of hydrocarbons. But it is money and nobody wants that.

It is a very delicate topic. If you want to take steps to combat the global warming, then I am afraid that it is going to cost us a lot of money. For example, the electricity may get up to 200% more expensive, if we phase out thermal power-plants in favor of solar plants.

[iamnotback]

You leftists will reap the evil that you are sowing:

My strong distaste for the leftist religion is because they attempt to bind those outside their choice of religion to obligations that their religion deems important. They are not minding their own business. Any religion which does not respect the freewill of others to choose their own value system, is IMO the greatest evil.

But I am not measuring my value system by how much others who don't choose my value system suffer, except in the case of the leftist, because the leftist do the one thing that I think is unequivocal evil and that is the force their religion on those who choose not to participate in their religion. Leftists are the most violent and oppressive religion on earth, including any other religion that tries to force everyone to convert. Religious zealots seem to relish in pointing out how everyone else suffers if they don't follow the "correct" religion.

...

Religion and value systems lead to war. As evident right now in this conversation. Implying to someone else that they are inferior or evil because of their value system is war... I am sure about that when I say leftists are evil. I know they will make war against me, even I try to opt-out, so I lose no potential peace by fighting back and telling them what they really are.

[yet they claim to be for peace which is just one of the many lies they tell themselves]

How many non-leftists will you force to pay the Carbon credits/taxes to fund your political movement and junk science?

You fuckers will go to war for your social justice.

(Oh but you have well funded theories right. As Einstein quipped, if the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts. With enough money, you can buy all the technobabble junk science bullshit you want to convince yourselves that your fraud is correct. Nevertheless those with a brainstem and reasonable level of understanding of Physics, understand what is thermodynamically impossible.)

[ridery99]

I believe if we starting to use more fossil fuel then govt is not going to take to anymore care of me or my life.

[Sithara007]

I believe if we starting to use more fossil fuel then govt is not going to take to anymore care of me or my life.

Right now there is no alternative to using fossil fuels. Electric cars are just too expensive, and very few can afford them. IMO, the most viable solutions are to replace highly polluting fossil fuels (such as coal) with less polluting ones (such as LNG and LPG), and to reduce deforestation.

[igorokavg13]

I believe if we starting to use more fossil fuel then govt is not going to take to anymore care of me or my life.

Right now there is no alternative to using fossil fuels. Electric cars are just too expensive, and very few can afford them. IMO, the most viable solutions are to replace highly polluting fossil fuels (such as coal) with less polluting ones (such as LNG and LPG), and to reduce deforestation.

There is always an alternative. I'm sure there is technology, but their implementation has to adhere to people who lobby the interests of fuel corporations. But even those technologies that is, it is possible to significantly reduce due to increase production. It would wish.

[bryant.coleman]

I believe if we starting to use more fossil fuel then govt is not going to take to anymore care of me or my life.

Right now there is no alternative to using fossil fuels. Electric cars are just too expensive, and very few can afford them. IMO, the most viable solutions are to replace highly polluting fossil fuels (such as coal) with less polluting ones (such as LNG and LPG), and to reduce deforestation.

There is always an alternative. I'm sure there is technology, but their implementation has to adhere to people who lobby the interests of fuel corporations. But even those technologies that is, it is possible to significantly reduce due to increase production. It would wish.

Electric cars are not a viable alternative, at least for now. The battery of a single Tesla vehicle costs at least $30,000 and the inverter costs another $25,000. Two of the components used in the battery (Cobalt and Lithium) are getting rarer, and more expensive. Unless an alternative to the Cobalt-Lithium battery is found, it will not be possible to replace fossil fuels with electric energy.

[iamnotback]

I believe if we starting to use more fossil fuel then govt is not going to take to anymore care of me or my life.

Right now there is no alternative to using fossil fuels. Electric cars are just too expensive, and very few can afford them. IMO, the most viable solutions are to replace highly polluting fossil fuels (such as coal) with less polluting ones (such as LNG and LPG), and to reduce deforestation.

There is always an alternative. I'm sure there is technology, but their implementation has to adhere to people who lobby the interests of fuel corporations. But even those technologies that is, it is possible to significantly reduce due to increase production. It would wish.

Electric cars are not a viable alternative, at least for now. The battery of a single Tesla vehicle costs at least $30,000 and the inverter costs another $25,000. Two of the components used in the battery (Cobalt and Lithium) are getting rarer, and more expensive. Unless an alternative to the Cobalt-Lithium battery is found, it will not be possible to replace fossil fuels with electric energy.

Since the benefit is environment and has nothing to do with climate change, then the point is to reduce emissions in densely crowded areas, thus...

Eliminate the size of the battery with continuous recharging from the roadways (but I am not sure about if the Physics is viable):

https://www.google.com/search?q=roads+that+recharge






Perhaps a more viable technology might be to have recharging stations every where in densely crowded cities and AI so the car can automatically plug itself in every where you park. So then your battery would only need to cover your typical duty-cycle weighted driving range on a daily basis between stops. For longer range trips, you'd use mass transportation.

Perhaps using nearly instant recharging capacitors instead of batteries...

At a red light, the AI cars could link themselves together so only the first car in the line has to plug in.

Technology and clever people can solve problems. If the fucking leftists would get out of the fucking way.

[criptix]

I believe if we starting to use more fossil fuel then govt is not going to take to anymore care of me or my life.

Right now there is no alternative to using fossil fuels. Electric cars are just too expensive, and very few can afford them. IMO, the most viable solutions are to replace highly polluting fossil fuels (such as coal) with less polluting ones (such as LNG and LPG), and to reduce deforestation.

There is always an alternative. I'm sure there is technology, but their implementation has to adhere to people who lobby the interests of fuel corporations. But even those technologies that is, it is possible to significantly reduce due to increase production. It would wish.

Electric cars are not a viable alternative, at least for now. The battery of a single Tesla vehicle costs at least $30,000 and the inverter costs another $25,000. Two of the components used in the battery (Cobalt and Lithium) are getting rarer, and more expensive. Unless an alternative to the Cobalt-Lithium battery is found, it will not be possible to replace fossil fuels with electric energy.

Since the benefit is environment and has nothing to do with climate change, then the point is to reduce emissions in densely crowded areas, thus...

Eliminate the size of the battery with continuous recharging from the roadways (but I am not sure about if the Physics is viable):

https://www.google.com/search?q=roads+that+recharge






Perhaps a more viable technology might be to have recharging stations every where in densely crowded cities and AI so the car can automatically plug itself in every where you park. So then your battery would only need to cover your typical duty-cycle weighted driving range on a daily basis between stops. For longer range trips, you'd use mass transportation.

Perhaps using nearly instant recharging capacitors instead of batteries...

At a red light, the AI cars could link themselves together so only the first car in the line has to plug in.

Technology and clever people can solve problems. If the fucking leftists would get out of the fucking way.

For the most part the tech already exist but we would need to rebuild a great part of our infrastructure.

This imho belongs to the realm of solar panels and wind turbines everywhere - atleast for the next decade(s).

[Xester]

If there is a world crisis such as global warming to the extreme then humans will be forced to leave underground due to extreme heat conditions in the surface. And this colonies underground are created and owned by the new world order hence  if you don't approve the new world order you cannot enter. Soon satanism will reign in the world hope the government today can prevent this disasters.

[bryant.coleman]

Since the benefit is environment and has nothing to do with climate change, then the point is to reduce emissions in densely crowded areas, thus...

Eliminate the size of the battery with continuous recharging from the roadways (but I am not sure about if the Physics is viable)

This option can be considered. But the time needed for recharging the battery can be a concern. The Tesla Model S is capable of traveling up to 400 km, on a single re-charge. If you don't need this much range, then the battery cost can be reduced. But then, a lot of people will find it irritating to recharge the battery every 40 km or 50 km.

[iamnotback]

Since the benefit is environment and has nothing to do with climate change, then the point is to reduce emissions in densely crowded areas, thus...

Eliminate the size of the battery with continuous recharging from the roadways (but I am not sure about if the Physics is viable)

This option can be considered. But the time needed for recharging the battery can be a concern. The Tesla Model S is capable of traveling up to 400 km, on a single re-charge. If you don't need this much range, then the battery cost can be reduced. But then, a lot of people will find it irritating to recharge the battery every 40 km or 50 km.

A combination of large capacitors and batteries can probably solve this quick charge and duty-cycle problem.

Creative engineers can solve problems.

[iamnotback]

If there is a world crisis such as global warming to the extreme then humans will be forced to leave underground due to extreme heat conditions in the surface. And this colonies underground are created and owned by the new world order hence  if you don't approve the new world order you cannot enter. Soon satanism will reign in the world hope the government today can prevent this disasters.

The image is appropriate but your written text is misguided.

AGW is a fake crisis (global cooling is coming instead), but if a majority of people (who are thus leftists) believe it, then it has the effect Rockefeller desired.

[iamnotback]

Do not Libertarians, or right wing free market advocates have a set of values ? Of course they do.
Why are they, then, left off the hook when it comes to imposing these values on those that don't share them, over the "leftists" ?

The salient distinction is that the free market by definition means no top-down edicts are directing the outcome, rather the Invisible Hand of opportunity costs are. Free markets anneal to the NATURAL LAW economics of nature. Whereas, top-down edicts do not anneal and become megadeath because of non-intended outcomes. For example, the 57 million who starved in Communist China, because of the top-down management of agriculture. The AGW proponents are trying to achieve a similar megadeath through corrupt top-down governance.

If an ideology is an idea system used to maintain an exploitative domination, then from where I'm sat, the free market ideology has by far created the greatest amount of inequality and stifled life chances on the world as a whole .

Top-down governance is corrupted also. The leftist's preferred system is just as exploitative as any natural power-law or exponential distribution of wealth. Because giving power to representatives is a power vacuum and thus will always be victors to the most corruptible. The 160 IQ Eric Raymond explained this well:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=984 (Some Iron Laws of Political Economics)

1% own half this world.

The unequal distribution of wealth is a fact of nature. There is nothing you can anyone can do about this, other than improving technology so that everyone's standard of living is lifted. The following references are taken from my whitepaper for a new altcoin project I am working on:

J. Doyne Farmer, John Geanakoplos. Power laws in economics and elsewhere. Chapter from a preliminary draft of a book called “Beyond equilibrium and efficiency”, §4.1 Summary of empirical evidence for power laws, p. 15, May 14, 2008.
Adrian A. Dragulescu, Victor M. Yakovenko. Exponential and power-law probability distributions of wealth and income in the United Kingdom and the United States. Physica A 299, pp. 213–221, proceedings of NATO workshop Applications of Physics in Economic Modeling, Prague, Feb 2001.
Adrian A. Dragulescu, Victor M. Yakovenko. Statistical Mechanics of Money, Income, and Wealth: A Short Survey. Modeling of Complex Systems: Seventh Granada Lectures, AIP Conference Proceedings 661, pp. 180-183, Sep 2, 2002.
Victor M. Yakovenko, J. Barkley Rosser, Jr.. Colloquium: Statistical mechanics of money, wealth, and income. Rev. Mod. Phys. 81(4), 1703, Dec 2, 2009.
Jean-Philippe Bouchard. Power-laws and Scaling in Finance: Empirical Evidence and Simple Models. Conference on Fractals 2002, Emergent Nature: Patterns, Growth and Scaling in the Sciences, pp. 157–171, Mar 17, 2002.
Xavier Gabaix. Power Laws in Economics: An Introduction. Journal of Economic Perspectives 30(1) pp. 185–206, §What Causes Power Laws?, Winter 2016.
Thomas Lux. Financial Power Laws: Empirical Evidence, Models, and Mechanism. Power Laws in the Social Sciences: Discovering Complexity and Non-Equilibrium Dynamics in the Social Universe, §IV. Multi-Agent Models in Behavioral Finance, 2006.


Also the extreme excesses in concentration of wealth are not due to the free market, but are due to the top-down political corruption that the leftists advocate. The solution the leftists advocate is the poison that gives them the reason to advocate their "solution". It is a vicious cycle of ignorance, akin to a dog chasing his tail.

It is quite sad to see such retarded humans destroy themselves and civilization along with it. Repeatedly.

But the ideas that legitimate this gross inequality are somehow OK because ......?? Or are their ideas somehow exempt from tyrannical abuse purely because they are the ones writing the rule books and history ?
Doesn't make any sense.

You retards never learn to stop chasing your tail. It is sad. I see you leftists as a cancer and a virus, that I need to inoculate from my life.



CoinCube won't approve of my language, but I use this language because you leftists are evil and violent and the "soft glove" approach doesn't register in your corrupt minds. You need to be told what you really are bluntly and frankly. And moreover, because you always talking so highly of your ethics and you belittle (very condescending tone!) the ethics of the free market proponents, so I just want to put the mirror in your face.

[Sithara007]

A combination of large capacitors and batteries can probably solve this quick charge and duty-cycle problem.

Creative engineers can solve problems.

Large batteries? That is the part of the problem. Large batteries require enormous amounts of Lithium and Cobalt, which will make the vehicle very much unaffordable for common people.

[iamnotback]

A combination of large capacitors and batteries can probably solve this quick charge and duty-cycle problem.

Creative engineers can solve problems.

Large batteries? That is the part of the problem. Large batteries require enormous amounts of Lithium and Cobalt, which will make the vehicle very much unaffordable for common people.

English must not be your native language. The adjective 'large' was applicable to 'capacitors' and the entire engineering point is to reduce the size of the batteries. That was obvious from the context of the discussion.

[BADecker]

Climate Scare Declared Officially Over - Error In Model Calculations Discovered

He says, "All the suggestions that we're facing some tipping point and suddenly we might see five or six, seven, eight, ten, twelve, thirteen Celsius of warming for a doubling of CO2, the kind of dramatic figures that have been appearing in some scientific papers, we can now prove that all of those very high end forecasts of how much warming we might get are based on an error in mathematics. Correct for the error and we are back down to a maximum of two, perhaps two and a half Celsius of warming for a doubling of CO2."

Read more at http://globalwarming-arclein.blogspot.ca/2016/12/climate-scare-declared-officially-over.html.

[funkenstein]

Climate Scare Declared Officially Over - Error In Model Calculations Discovered

It's true you know.  I was swimming in the Yang Tze river the other day and I came across this river dolphin who was of the same opinion.  We looked up into crystal clear blue skies - could see for miles around in any direction as you can throughout southeast asia - and saw animals of all sorts and vibrant life all around.  There are healthy coral reefs and blossoming fish populations around the world, it's really just an error in model calculations that has scared people.  People get hung up on one or two orders of magnitude of this or that contaminant; don't they realize the massive herds of buffalo will ensure the united states does not continue to become a desert?   Stand at the glistening mouth of the mighty colorado as it empties into the ocean and tell me there's a climate scare.  I'll wait here, you freaking lefties. 



   

[Sithara007]

Climate Scare Declared Officially Over - Error In Model Calculations Discovered

He says, "All the suggestions that we're facing some tipping point and suddenly we might see five or six, seven, eight, ten, twelve, thirteen Celsius of warming for a doubling of CO2, the kind of dramatic figures that have been appearing in some scientific papers, we can now prove that all of those very high end forecasts of how much warming we might get are based on an error in mathematics. Correct for the error and we are back down to a maximum of two, perhaps two and a half Celsius of warming for a doubling of CO2."

Read more at http://globalwarming-arclein.blogspot.ca/2016/12/climate-scare-declared-officially-over.html.

Christopher Monckton is a well known climate change denialist. He was involved in a quarrel with with John P. Abraham, over climate change denial. Also, Monckton is the same individual who argued for the forcible segregation of HIV positive people.

[valta4065]

When you are taking about global climate cycles is the 29 years of the above graph an appropriate sample size?

I would say not.

During the past 50 years, the global temperatures have increased by more than one degree Celsius. At no point of time in the past, did the temperature increased by this much in such a short a short duration. Still believe that this global warming is a hoax?

Stop try using arguments with those people man xD
They just like to pretend they know and you don't. But they don't explain by ONE BIT the actual temperature changes that we observe...

[iamnotback]

Leftist religion idiots should not watch this, as it would be a complete waste of their time:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Lye5liWuZw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQshyqCLYHo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ap6YfQx9I64
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C35pasCr6KI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzCXwF39enc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCy_UOjEir0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oh6zDbWMuP0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GujLcfdovE8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEcnJFTxQcU

Probably the smartest man alive today:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiKfWdXXfIs&t=529s

No.
They are thermoD tied to each other in the other direction; i.e. a warming ocean releases CO2 and a cooling ocean absorbs CO2 - it's cause and effect.
Increasing atmospheric CO2 (artificially) cannot significantly raise ocean temperatures because the back-radiation from CO2 (Longwave radiation) cannot penetrate water.

[BADecker]

Climate Scare Declared Officially Over - Error In Model Calculations Discovered

He says, "All the suggestions that we're facing some tipping point and suddenly we might see five or six, seven, eight, ten, twelve, thirteen Celsius of warming for a doubling of CO2, the kind of dramatic figures that have been appearing in some scientific papers, we can now prove that all of those very high end forecasts of how much warming we might get are based on an error in mathematics. Correct for the error and we are back down to a maximum of two, perhaps two and a half Celsius of warming for a doubling of CO2."

Read more at http://globalwarming-arclein.blogspot.ca/2016/12/climate-scare-declared-officially-over.html.

Christopher Monckton is a well known climate change denialist. He was involved in a quarrel with with John P. Abraham, over climate change denial. Also, Monckton is the same individual who argued for the forcible segregation of HIV positive people.

Well of course climate change is real. Yesterday was sunny and warm. Today is rainy and cool. Tomorrow it will be cold and snowy. The next day it will be warm and sunny and all the snow will melt. Climate change.

Nobody has a clear enough understanding of thousands of years of climate to be able tell that the present, tiny shift isn't some cycle that has happened hundreds of times in the past.

The big issue that has been made out of climate change these days is of a political nature, to put fear in the minds of people, so that they bow to the wishes of their politician saviors... all to make the politicians rich.

[criptix]

Interview of freeman dyson about agw from yale 360:

http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2151

[BADecker]

Interview of freeman dyson about agw from yale 360:

http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2151

Yes, think of how wonderful it would be to get more humidity. The Sahara could be opened up to homesteading. More heat would open the Northern Canada and Siberian lands to homesteading. All we need is a little more warmth on the planet, and we will have room for triple out population.

OF course, the lack of warmth in the hearts of our leaders towards each other, would still reduce the population through the wars they would continue to incite.

[cryptomite]

You would think that people in this space would get it.

It's disgusting how powerful the indoctrination scam is.

Global warming is a scam. And you people actually think you have proof. It's sad. Its scary.

Wake up people. You are being tricked. Just like with fiat and pretty much everything else.

"He's a well known denier" get the fuck out. Smh wtf lol

[Sithara007]

Yes, think of how wonderful it would be to get more humidity. The Sahara could be opened up to homesteading. More heat would open the Northern Canada and Siberian lands to homesteading. All we need is a little more warmth on the planet, and we will have room for triple out population.

First of all, the most fertile lands lying in the lowlands will be swept by the sea, as the polar ice caps melt. Permafrost in Canada and Russia will melt, making these areas uninhabitable. In the end, the total land available will be reduced by more than 50%.

[criptix]

Yes, think of how wonderful it would be to get more humidity. The Sahara could be opened up to homesteading. More heat would open the Northern Canada and Siberian lands to homesteading. All we need is a little more warmth on the planet, and we will have room for triple out population.

First of all, the most fertile lands lying in the lowlands will be swept by the sea, as the polar ice caps melt. Permafrost in Canada and Russia will melt, making these areas uninhabitable. In the end, the total land available will be reduced by more than 50%.

First of all global warming will take care of over population 

As long as we still have the crop production from the usa, china and russia all is good.

[funkenstein]

It's not about 1 or 2 degrees or a meter or two of sea level.  It's about the living things.

It's about whether you give a shit about your own body or not. 

 

[Sithara007]

It's not about 1 or 2 degrees or a meter or two of sea level. 

It is not about two degree change in the temperature and two meter rise in the sea level. This month, the average temperatures in the Arctic were at least 20 degrees higher than average.

[iamnotback]

Cherry picking locations. Smart. How about the comparative data from Antarctica?

Didn't you know that the magnetic pole shifts locations over time, thus the climate shifts over time. It is all natural.

These fucking socialist idiots only know how to steal:

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/taxes/91-year-old-woman-court-sides-with-bank-her-cash-saving-illegal/

The leftists feel no shame for their megadeath philosophy. Repeating every time throughout human history, yet they are so proud of it.

[mainpmf]

Cherry picking locations. Smart. How about the comparative data from Antarctica?

Didn't you know that the magnetic pole shifts locations over time, thus the climate shifts over time. It is all natural.

These fucking socialist idiots only know how to steal:

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/taxes/91-year-old-woman-court-sides-with-bank-her-cash-saving-illegal/

The leftists feel no shame for their megadeath philosophy. Repeating every time throughout human history, yet they are so proud of it.

Well first why talking about leftists here?
I mean it's not like it is linked in any way to a left philosophy. It's just about the way you see life.

You never brought any proof, just the fact that global warming MIGHT NOT BE human made.

So you got a choice here, continuing to do the same because you might have a doubt or taking a more secure path. Just a question of logic.

And you still never explained average temperature raise of course.

[protokol]

Of the hottest years on record, 15 out of 17 have come since 2000. By contrast, more than a century has gone by since the planet had a record cold year (1911). In addition, this marks 39 years in a row with above average global temperatures and 372 months in a row with global temperatures above average.

Source: http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/the-10-hottest-years-on-record

Leftists, Rightists, Communists, Anarchists... Your political stance has absolutely nothing to do with the data, so why do deniers keep using political ideology as some sort of insult on people's intelligence? Grow up Anonymint, if you have some actual scientific refutations on the data then approach the subject like a grown-up, rather than resorting to political smear campaigns.

[Sithara007]

Cherry picking locations. Smart. How about the comparative data from Antarctica?

Antarctica is also affected by climate change. And worse still, the temperature increase is many times the global average.

Antarctica has experienced air temperature increases of 3°C in the Antarctic Peninsula Although that might not seem very much, it is 5 times the mean rate of global warming as reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

http://discoveringantarctica.org.uk/challenges/sustainability/impacts-of-climate-change/

In Antarctica, the Larsen B ice shelf has vanished completely. Other major ice shelves, such as the Ross and the Ronne are diminishing at a rapid pace.

[joebrook]

I don't seem to trust these scientists, they say one thing and later they change their mind again. If the polar caps melts into water the sun will evaporate.

[iamnotback]

How can I have a discussion with idiots. Impossible. It is as possible as talking with a brick wall, because neither (the idiots nor the brick wall) can comprehend what is being conveyed.

And yes I am talking about all of you proponents who have posted in this thread. You guys are really dumb. Enjoy.

[valta4065]

How can I have a discussion with idiots. Impossible. It is as possible as talking with a brick wall, because neither (the idiots nor the brick wall) can comprehend what is being conveyed.

And yes I am talking about all of you proponents who have posted in this thread. You guys are really dumb. Enjoy.

Ahahah ok I get it user ignored

The man knows only one thing: to insult and deny facts and arguments with insults.

It's not because you say "they are all idiots" that suddenly the last 50 years of measures disappear...

[valta4065]

Cherry picking locations. Smart. How about the comparative data from Antarctica?

Didn't you know that the magnetic pole shifts locations over time, thus the climate shifts over time. It is all natural.

These fucking socialist idiots only know how to steal:

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/taxes/91-year-old-woman-court-sides-with-bank-her-cash-saving-illegal/

The leftists feel no shame for their megadeath philosophy. Repeating every time throughout human history, yet they are so proud of it.

Omg didn't see this post too xD

Yeah your answer is very logical and exactly in the debate... Because there is a clear correlation between global warming and taxation. Obvious.

And don't you find it funny how the man answers to an argument with the cherry picking argument while doing the same with a fact? 

[Alfa123]

I do not know how anyone, but in Europe last year, on the contrary, it was colder than usual. Now generally very cold and lots of snow. I don't remember such a cold December since the 90s. It seems to me that global warming is a myth.

[iamnotback]

Mama I shit all over my shoe and I am so proud.

As if he entirely missed the fact that 50 years is as relevant to climate as a grain of sand on the beach is relevant to the tides.

But please don't bother to wake them up from their leftist destiny. They really do want to cull themselves.

[funkenstein]

Leftists, Rightists, Communists, Anarchists... Your political stance has absolutely nothing to do with the data, so why do deniers keep using political ideology as some sort of insult on people's intelligence? Grow up Anonymint, if you have some actual scientific refutations on the data then approach the subject like a grown-up, rather than resorting to political smear campaigns.

Thank you Protokol, you are exactly right here.  +1

"Excuse me sir you appear to be bleeding profusely are you all right?"
"Get out of here you Trump supporting neocon, I'll never listen to your kind"

 

[iamnotback]

I will ignore all the points AnonyMint made because I am too dumb (and ignorantly proud of it) to understand how he has related the facts and data, and so I will continue to assert my incorrect ignorance as a slander against those who look at me as the total idiot that I am.

Thank you Protokol, you are exactly right here.  +1

It is quite easy (i.e. blatantly obvious) to understand how leftists (aka the mindless, violent, mob) destroy themselves:

BOASTFUL IGNORANCE

We tried to warn you 10 years ago and you were so boastfully condescending. Merkel opened the floodgates for the RAPEFUGEES and you still assert your boastful ignorance. Analogous to the lurch from Socialist-Communist Wiemar Republic the socialist-fascist  Nazis, you fools will do another megadeath and then blame it on a pyschopath, never understanding your own culpability. Which will enable you to do it all over again. Megadeath over and over. Love you guys. It is better comedy than watching the circus.

You never brought any proof...

Thanks for confirming you haven't even read my posts carefully and/or are incapable of comprehending them. But of course if you weren't so dumb, then you wouldn't be a leftist, so it is quite expected. Continue as you will.

[iamnotback]

Cherry picking locations. Smart. How about the comparative data from Antarctica?

Antarctica is also affected by climate change. And worse still, the temperature increase is many times the global average.

Antarctica has experienced air temperature increases of 3°C in the Antarctic Peninsula Although that might not seem very much, it is 5 times the mean rate of global warming as reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

http://discoveringantarctica.org.uk/challenges/sustainability/impacts-of-climate-change/

In Antarctica, the Larsen B ice shelf has vanished completely. Other major ice shelves, such as the Ross and the Ronne are diminishing at a rapid pace.

Facts are never something the leftists will accept, because it doesn't fit their activist religion of mutual self-destruction:

http://canadafreepress.com/article/media-propaganda-and-the-wilkins-ice-shelf-collapse
https://www.iceagenow.info/oops-antarctic-ice-shelves-disappearing-%C2%95/

It's not about 1 or 2 degrees or a meter or two of sea level.  It's about the living things.

It's about whether you give a shit about your own body or not.  

It is about the next megadeath, culling event caused by you leftist clowns.

[iamnotback]

I realize you clowns can't comprehend the relevance of 1000s of years of repeating cyclical change, but any way I'll post this for those who have a functioning brain stem:

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/markets-by-sector/bonds/bonds-climate-change/
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/nature/climate-change-history-the-fall-of-empires-come-when-warming-turns-of-cooling/

[mainpmf]

Mama I shit all over my shoe and I am so proud.

As if he entirely missed the fact that 50 years is as relevant to climate as a grain of sand on the beach is relevant to the tides.

But please don't bother to wake them up from their leftist destiny. They really do want to cull themselves.

Which is exactly why it's not normal at all to measure huge differences...

Your insults won't change facts. Of course 50 years isn't much but that also means that we SHOUDLN'T SEE MUCH DIFFRENCES.

Now you CAN say that because the amount of time isn't very high it means that those measures aren't significant. But MAYBE you should still ask yourself "what if the fact that there is still a strong trend currently might not be just statistical errors?"
Because all what you're saying is "it hasn't been measured on long enough so we can't say it's true". But no one is saying it's true, what we're saying is: we measured something and the problem is that if it's true it will lead us to absolute catastrophe so we should act like it was true and we'll see how things evolve. But when you get abnormal activities signs and signs of potential danger what do you do? You act in order to prevent the threat or you say "nah it's ok it hasn't happened yet"?

[mainpmf]

Cherry picking locations. Smart. How about the comparative data from Antarctica?

Antarctica is also affected by climate change. And worse still, the temperature increase is many times the global average.

Antarctica has experienced air temperature increases of 3°C in the Antarctic Peninsula Although that might not seem very much, it is 5 times the mean rate of global warming as reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

http://discoveringantarctica.org.uk/challenges/sustainability/impacts-of-climate-change/

In Antarctica, the Larsen B ice shelf has vanished completely. Other major ice shelves, such as the Ross and the Ronne are diminishing at a rapid pace.

Facts are never something the leftists will accept, because it doesn't fit their activist religion of mutual self-destruction:

http://canadafreepress.com/article/media-propaganda-and-the-wilkins-ice-shelf-collapse
https://www.iceagenow.info/oops-antarctic-ice-shelves-disappearing-%C2%95/

I love it how you insult everyone and then give two article which are "facts" and with:
The first one which is just plain bullshit without any source. I mean I could do the same and just write long article without any data any source any experiment or any proof of any kind and just tell you "you see you're wrong". Your first article is just plain bullshit and the most funny part is that it talks about PROPAGANDA xD
The second one is compelling 2 articles of popular press, not the best source but at least there is one. And then you go to the linked article and you see that your link is willingly forgetting parts of the originals article just to lie to you.

You talk about propaganda and facts? Please can you tell me how an article written without any source is a fact. Or how an article taking only half of the original statement is a fact.

You're only lying to yourself man.

[ekaterina77]

Cherry picking locations. Smart. How about the comparative data from Antarctica?

Antarctica is also affected by climate change. And worse still, the temperature increase is many times the global average.

Antarctica has experienced air temperature increases of 3°C in the Antarctic Peninsula Although that might not seem very much, it is 5 times the mean rate of global warming as reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

http://discoveringantarctica.org.uk/challenges/sustainability/impacts-of-climate-change/

In Antarctica, the Larsen B ice shelf has vanished completely. Other major ice shelves, such as the Ross and the Ronne are diminishing at a rapid pace.

Facts are never something the leftists will accept, because it doesn't fit their activist religion of mutual self-destruction:

http://canadafreepress.com/article/media-propaganda-and-the-wilkins-ice-shelf-collapse
https://www.iceagenow.info/oops-antarctic-ice-shelves-disappearing-%C2%95/

I love it how you insult everyone and then give two article which are "facts" and with:
The first one which is just plain bullshit without any source. I mean I could do the same and just write long article without any data any source any experiment or any proof of any kind and just tell you "you see you're wrong". Your first article is just plain bullshit and the most funny part is that it talks about PROPAGANDA xD
The second one is compelling 2 articles of popular press, not the best source but at least there is one. And then you go to the linked article and you see that your link is willingly forgetting parts of the originals article just to lie to you.

You talk about propaganda and facts? Please can you tell me how an article written without any source is a fact. Or how an article taking only half of the original statement is a fact.

You're only lying to yourself man.

Always temperature changes.This year is colder than usual and glaciers may again increase. It seems to me that a story about global warming was invented to make money and all. There is no evidence

[Blackdeath]

Cherry picking locations. Smart. How about the comparative data from Antarctica?

Antarctica is also affected by climate change. And worse still, the temperature increase is many times the global average.

Antarctica has experienced air temperature increases of 3°C in the Antarctic Peninsula Although that might not seem very much, it is 5 times the mean rate of global warming as reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

http://discoveringantarctica.org.uk/challenges/sustainability/impacts-of-climate-change/

In Antarctica, the Larsen B ice shelf has vanished completely. Other major ice shelves, such as the Ross and the Ronne are diminishing at a rapid pace.

Facts are never something the leftists will accept, because it doesn't fit their activist religion of mutual self-destruction:

http://canadafreepress.com/article/media-propaganda-and-the-wilkins-ice-shelf-collapse
https://www.iceagenow.info/oops-antarctic-ice-shelves-disappearing-%C2%95/

I love it how you insult everyone and then give two article which are "facts" and with:
The first one which is just plain bullshit without any source. I mean I could do the same and just write long article without any data any source any experiment or any proof of any kind and just tell you "you see you're wrong". Your first article is just plain bullshit and the most funny part is that it talks about PROPAGANDA xD
The second one is compelling 2 articles of popular press, not the best source but at least there is one. And then you go to the linked article and you see that your link is willingly forgetting parts of the originals article just to lie to you.

You talk about propaganda and facts? Please can you tell me how an article written without any source is a fact. Or how an article taking only half of the original statement is a fact.

You're only lying to yourself man.

Always temperature changes.This year is colder than usual and glaciers may again increase. It seems to me that a story about global warming was invented to make money and all. There is no evidence

If you think today's temperature is colder this year than before, you're wrong. Specially to the country which is near in pacific asia whom experiencing the El Nino. Global warming isn't invented, it is phenomenon. It is caused by green house gasses which is produce by volcano and other stuff that produces pollution.

[Sithara007]

Always temperature changes.This year is colder than usual and glaciers may again increase. It seems to me that a story about global warming was invented to make money and all. There is no evidence

Tell this to the inhabitants of island nations such as Maldives and Tuvalu. Many of the smaller islands in these nations have become uninhabitable, as a result of the sea level rise.

[beafheart]

Always temperature changes.This year is colder than usual and glaciers may again increase. It seems to me that a story about global warming was invented to make money and all. There is no evidence

Tell this to the inhabitants of island nations such as Maldives and Tuvalu. Many of the smaller islands in these nations have become uninhabitable, as a result of the sea level rise.

Maybe so, but in other areas the opposite drought. Water becomes less. In Europe, this year's winter much colder than in the past. This means that during the winter the ice will grow at the pole. The earth is self-regulating planet and all will be well.

[mainpmf]

Always temperature changes.This year is colder than usual and glaciers may again increase. It seems to me that a story about global warming was invented to make money and all. There is no evidence

Tell this to the inhabitants of island nations such as Maldives and Tuvalu. Many of the smaller islands in these nations have become uninhabitable, as a result of the sea level rise.

Maybe so, but in other areas the opposite drought. Water becomes less. In Europe, this year's winter much colder than in the past. This means that during the winter the ice will grow at the pole. The earth is self-regulating planet and all will be well.

Wahou! Did you read that?
Oh thank god! The planet is self-regulating that's a good news! I'm so glad you precised that point.
And me who thought that any natural action on nature and environmental change took hundreds of years at least and dozens of thousands of years most of the time. I guess that the planet will still perfectly adapt and "self regulate" from the influence of Human actions in the last 50 years, why shouldn't be the case?
Well MAYBE, but just a tiny little maybe, that we see changes happening so fast we don't even truly understand how it's even possible.
So MAYBE that your "all will be well" argument is bullshit.
Especially if your in a sensible region and climate!

[iamnotback]

Well MAYBE, but just a tiny little maybe, that we see changes happening so fast we don't even truly understand how it's even possible.
So MAYBE that your "all will be well" argument is bullshit.

And maybe because of that illogical fear man will create a socialism that causes a megadeath. Ahem. Actually not maybe, guaranteed.

I would take the 0.0000000000000000001% chance that that man could destroy his environment totally to the 100% chance of socialism causing another megadeath as it always does throughout human history.

And guaranteed because retards (like you) are more populous. So you enjoy culling yourselves. Go forth and reap what you sow.

[iamnotback]

The first one which is just plain bullshit without any source. I mean I could do the same and just write long article without any data any source any experiment or any proof of any kind and just tell you "you see you're wrong". Your first article is just plain bullshit and the most funny part is that it talks about PROPAGANDA xD
The second one is compelling 2 articles of popular press, not the best source but at least there is one. And then you go to the linked article and you see that your link is willingly forgetting parts of the originals article just to lie to you.

You talk about propaganda and facts? Please can you tell me how an article written without any source is a fact. Or how an article taking only half of the original statement is a fact.

You're only lying to yourself man.

Do some research and stop lying.

Or continue lying and cull yourselves. I don't care. You are determined to destroy yourselves so just go ahead. You retards are pitiful.

[Sithara007]

Always temperature changes.This year is colder than usual and glaciers may again increase. It seems to me that a story about global warming was invented to make money and all. There is no evidence

Tell this to the inhabitants of island nations such as Maldives and Tuvalu. Many of the smaller islands in these nations have become uninhabitable, as a result of the sea level rise.

Maybe so, but in other areas the opposite drought. Water becomes less. In Europe, this year's winter much colder than in the past. This means that during the winter the ice will grow at the pole. The earth is self-regulating planet and all will be well.

The climatic variation is worsening. Both the droughts and floods are becoming more common. Increased temperature means increased evaporation from the water bodies, and this results in increased precipitation in some regions.

[mainpmf]

Well MAYBE, but just a tiny little maybe, that we see changes happening so fast we don't even truly understand how it's even possible.
So MAYBE that your "all will be well" argument is bullshit.

And maybe because of that illogical fear man will create a socialism that causes a megadeath. Ahem. Actually not maybe, guaranteed.

I would take the 0.0000000000000000001% chance that that man could destroy his environment totally to the 100% chance of socialism causing another megadeath as it always does throughout human history.

And guaranteed because retards (like you) are more populous. So you enjoy culling yourselves. Go forth and reap what you sow.

Oo

Did anyone see the logic here? I'm still looking for it!
So. A lot of question:
1/ do you realize that your "0.00000000000000000001%" of chance is actually currently the strongest destruction of biodiversity since the last asteroids that destroyed 80% of our world?
2/ where do you get your 100% chance about socialism? Most socialist countries  are doing not only pretty well but with a greater IDH than others

AND THE MOST IMPORTANT
3/ WTF is the link? Oo
I mean we're talking about ecological problems, what is the link with socialism for first and what the fuck is this megadeath you're talking about? xD

[mainpmf]

The first one which is just plain bullshit without any source. I mean I could do the same and just write long article without any data any source any experiment or any proof of any kind and just tell you "you see you're wrong". Your first article is just plain bullshit and the most funny part is that it talks about PROPAGANDA xD
The second one is compelling 2 articles of popular press, not the best source but at least there is one. And then you go to the linked article and you see that your link is willingly forgetting parts of the originals article just to lie to you.

You talk about propaganda and facts? Please can you tell me how an article written without any source is a fact. Or how an article taking only half of the original statement is a fact.

You're only lying to yourself man.

Do some research and stop lying.

Or continue lying and cull yourselves. I don't care. You are determined to destroy yourselves so just go ahead. You retards are pitiful.

That's what I did by clicking on your links. You refuse to answer but it doesn't change facts:
You're first article has no source. That's a fact. You're telling I'm lying? Well go on and give me the sources of your first article: THERE ARE NONE
And for the second anyone can just click on the sources to see even just with the title that this article is willingly cherrypicking informations as the title of the sources article are "temperature changing not as fast as expected" and not "temperature isn't changing" as your article tries to claim.

So stop acting as a troll. You say I'm lying? Prove it. Because I claim you're just spreading propaganda and I prove it. Anyone can see it by just clicking on your articles.

[iamnotback]

That's what I did by clicking on your links.

That is not research.

[iamnotback]

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/climate/global-warming-opps-ice-age-hits-europe/

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/nature/the-anti-climate-change-scientists-are-at-last-being-heard/

[mainpmf]

That's what I did by clicking on your links.

That is not research.

Dude... You can't be honest here no?

I'm saying your sources are pure propaganda. Not only saying it but also proving it. And what do you answer to that? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Except the numerous insults of course, as it seems that it's the only thing you know to do. Insulting the opponents without any arguments.

[mainpmf]

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/climate/global-warming-opps-ice-age-hits-europe/

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/nature/the-anti-climate-change-scientists-are-at-last-being-heard/

Oh look!

Other articles of less than 2 paragraphs without any source or arguments...
Anyone taking you seriously is either a troll either someone completely dumb.
Climate change is a complex subject and you CAN have arguments against the current thesis. But what you're doing is plain trolling nothing else.

[TicTacTic]

That's what I did by clicking on your links.

That is not research.

Dude... You can't be honest here no?

I'm saying your sources are pure propaganda. Not only saying it but also proving it. And what do you answer to that? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Except the numerous insults of course, as it seems that it's the only thing you know to do. Insulting the opponents without any arguments.

On this fake issue a lot of people earn money. Why they are so sensitive to criticism. I wouldn't mind if it was actively implemented alternative energy sources, but this not happening.

[mainpmf]

That's what I did by clicking on your links.

That is not research.

Dude... You can't be honest here no?

I'm saying your sources are pure propaganda. Not only saying it but also proving it. And what do you answer to that? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Except the numerous insults of course, as it seems that it's the only thing you know to do. Insulting the opponents without any arguments.

On this fake issue a lot of people earn money. Why they are so sensitive to criticism. I wouldn't mind if it was actively implemented alternative energy sources, but this not happening.

That's...Wrong.
First people earn money with climate change studies but they would earn even more working in other fields...
Second, lot's of alternative energy sources are implemented accross the world but government tend to prefer the polluting ones even if they are far more expensive!

[Sithara007]

That's...Wrong.
First people earn money with climate change studies but they would earn even more working in other fields...
Second, lot's of alternative energy sources are implemented accross the world but government tend to prefer the polluting ones even if they are far more expensive!

I would say that the lobby which argues for alternative energy is vastly out-funded by the lobby which argues in favor of increased use of fossil fuels. The latter receives billions of USD in funds from the GCC states such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar. For the past many decades, they have successfully managed to sabotage government support for projects which generate alternative energy.

[ridery99]

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/climate/global-warming-opps-ice-age-hits-europe/

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/nature/the-anti-climate-change-scientists-are-at-last-being-heard/

Oh look!

Other articles of less than 2 paragraphs without any source or arguments...
Anyone taking you seriously is either a troll either someone completely dumb.
Climate change is a complex subject and you CAN have arguments against the current thesis. But what you're doing is plain trolling nothing else.

Mr. Armstrong predicted a global stock market crash to happen in late 2015.. Now he is a climate scientist? Nice 

[mainpmf]

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/climate/global-warming-opps-ice-age-hits-europe/

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/nature/the-anti-climate-change-scientists-are-at-last-being-heard/

Oh look!

Other articles of less than 2 paragraphs without any source or arguments...
Anyone taking you seriously is either a troll either someone completely dumb.
Climate change is a complex subject and you CAN have arguments against the current thesis. But what you're doing is plain trolling nothing else.

Mr. Armstrong predicted a global stock market crash to happen in late 2015.. Now he is a climate scientist? Nice 

Yeah I like the fact that his "proofs" all come from a site named "armstrong economics" xD

But let's be honest he has nothing. No arguments no sources nothing. Only insults. It's complicated to deny climate change completely. But the thesis of climate change aren't perfect, far from it. There are numerous points that can be heavily discussed. Especially concerning the long term effects on biodiversity which are not well known.
Or the fact that CO2 and temperature are linked (that's sure) but the link isn't perfectly clear.

[iamnotback]

That's what I did by clicking on your links.

That is not research.

Dude... You can't be honest here no?

I'm saying your sources are pure propaganda.

Do research idiot:

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/nature/nasa-reports-antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum/
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/nature/sun-drop-in-energy-output-is-stronger-than-expected/

[grenade launcher]

That's...Wrong.
First people earn money with climate change studies but they would earn even more working in other fields...
Second, lot's of alternative energy sources are implemented accross the world but government tend to prefer the polluting ones even if they are far more expensive!

I would say that the lobby which argues for alternative energy is vastly out-funded by the lobby which argues in favor of increased use of fossil fuels. The latter receives billions of USD in funds from the GCC states such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar. For the past many decades, they have successfully managed to sabotage government support for projects which generate alternative energy.

Last year Alan Musk introduced energy new. Tile which produces so much energy that the house provides full autonomy. I hope that very soon this technology will be available to all. Maybe the surge of terrorism associated with it?

[mainpmf]

That's what I did by clicking on your links.

That is not research.

Dude... You can't be honest here no?

I'm saying your sources are pure propaganda.

Do research idiot:

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/nature/nasa-reports-antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum/
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/nature/sun-drop-in-energy-output-is-stronger-than-expected/

Please all of you, I beg you, click on those links.
Click on those links and see by yourself the proud "iamnotback" and his incredible argument of one word: "idiot", one source "www.armstrongeconomics.com" and all those beautiful article not only false, but I guess they're in fact trolls.
Click back on those links iamnotback, and try to find ONE SOURCE of the articles.

Once you admited there is no source, could you please explain me how a freaking 8 lines "article" made by an unknown guy on the internet without any link, source, record or data, is worth anything?

Please just explain that.

[protokol]

Yeah, he didn't used to be this bad. In fact if this is the same user "Anonymint" and his account hasn't been sold/transferred, I've seen him disagree with Armstrong on a number of occasions. But you're right, those are sorry excuses for "research", no sources or even real explanations.

For example, where's the data for "Antarctic sea ice record high" come from, is it an all time record, is it a record of thickness or area, is it a seasonal record based on percentage between summer/winter etc?

When you question him or post conflicting data, he just calls you a "leftist idiot". It's become like trying to debate with a brick wall...

[mainpmf]

Yeah, he didn't used to be this bad. In fact if this is the same user "Anonymint" and his account hasn't been sold/transferred, I've seen him disagree with Armstrong on a number of occasions. But you're right, those are sorry excuses for "research", no sources or even real explanations.

For example, where's the data for "Antarctic sea ice record high" come from, is it an all time record, is it a record of thickness or area, is it a seasonal record based on percentage between summer/winter etc?

When you question him or post conflicting data, he just calls you a "leftist idiot". It's become like trying to debate with a brick wall...

Thank you, I'm glad someone checked this.
Problem is that people like him talk a lot. They create thread made to deceive people just to spread their religion (because when you have multiple beliefs supported by 0 facts or data it's a religion).

I mean you can disagree with many things and climate change isn't an easy question, but you can't just deny it by denying nasa records but accepting blog articles without sources as solid proofs xD

[iamnotback]

That's what I did by clicking on your links.

That is not research.

Dude... You can't be honest here no?

I'm saying your sources are pure propaganda.

Do research idiot:

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/nature/nasa-reports-antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum/
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/nature/sun-drop-in-energy-output-is-stronger-than-expected/

Please all of you, I beg you, click on those links.
Click on those links and see by yourself the proud "iamnotback" and his incredible argument of one word: "idiot", one source "www.armstrongeconomics.com" and all those beautiful article not only false, but I guess they're in fact trolls.
Click back on those links iamnotback, and try to find ONE SOURCE of the articles.

Once you admited there is no source, could you please explain me how a freaking 8 lines "article" made by an unknown guy on the internet without any link, source, record or data, is worth anything?

Please just explain that.

You pinheads haven't learned how to use Google yet.

https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum/

Sorry I don't think I need to explain how to use Google. Ask a 5 year old to help you.

The following is known as "backsplaining".

“The planet as a whole is doing what was expected in terms of warming. Sea ice as a whole is decreasing as expected, but just like with global warming, not every location with sea ice will have a downward trend in ice extent,” Parkinson said.

Now those who have a brainstem will dig deeper and find the error in the above backsplaining.

Maybe a 5 year old can help you, given their brain maybe hasn't yet been polluted with official government lies.

[iamnotback]

When you question him or post conflicting data, he just calls you a "leftist idiot". It's become like trying to debate with a brick wall...

Pinhead in all his glory:

Anyone who pays much attention to contentious scienctific debates in our time (vaccinations, GMOs, global climate change, etc) recognizes 'peer review' as a laughable circle-jerk which means little or nothing when corporate money is involved and corporate profits are on the line.

That pinhead protokol doesn't have the intellect to incorporate such holistic analysis.

Smallpox was eradicated from the Earth due to vaccination (pretty much, some strains still exist in high security virology labs, but the general population doesn't suffer from it because it was destroyed through vaccination programmes). That in itself is a some pretty thorough evidence that some vaccines at least work as they should. Many other serious diseases are now under control through vaccination.

You repeat your same error from the AGW thread, in that you think a century is of any significance at all relative to the repeating cycles throughout all of recorded history.

Smallpox is not eradicated. It may be dormant and eventually will mutate and pounce again.

The benefit from some vaccinations may be worth it, but we can't know the costs. We don't know what impacts we are making. For example, by ruining human natural selection for surviving viruses, we may be preparing ourselves for a megadeath due to allowing many of the weak DNA to proliferate (procreate).

A. This chart only looks at deaths in the US from 1900-1965 (a pretty small amount of time),

And you conveniently argue against the relevance of short periods of time when it suits your agenda. You are not objective.

As for your cancer comments, you should know that one of the main reasons that cancer has become so prevalent is because humans are living longer and longer, giving cancer more time to develop. That's why you don't see many animals in their natural environments get cancer, because they die from other causes before cancer kills them. Modern medicine has increased the life expectancy by a huge amount, so cancers have obviously become a statistically higher killer. This is well known in the scientific community.

Prove that jackass.

Explain how the Japanese on Okinawa live so long without cancer.

http://www.hngn.com/articles/7367/20130710/okinawa-diet-followers-average-life-span-116-years-eat-video.htm

Answer me this: Why is the life expectancy of the majority of the world's population (at least in the most developed countries) at an all time high? If vaccines are deadly, wouldn't we be seeing a decrease in life expectancy?

Food for thought.

Do you have an IQ of 105?

WTF is wrong with your brain.

As if vaccines are the only technological improvement over the past century which has impacted the quality of life of humans.  

What about refrigeration.

I don't like the idea of too much state involvement in people's personal lives, but I also don't believe herd immunity should be compromised because some parents refuse to vaccinate their children - it puts others in danger that may not be able to be vaccinated for real medical reasons (such as allergic reactions)

I don't think full on prosecution of parents is fair, but I do think they should be "persuaded" to vaccinate - for example some countries have started stopping welfare/benefits for parents who refuse to vaccinate their children. That seems like a good idea to me.

Now you show your true face.

You behave like a narcissistic little dictator, who knows it all and likes to play god. It's disgusting.

It's unbearable to read your delusional belief in medical pseudo-science and open disrespect for individual freedom.

You are now on my ignore list.

Another Hitler wolf in "kind, caring, leftist" sheepskin.

These are the most dangerous virus on the planet and we need a forced eradication plan to remove them from the planet. Ignore is too Libertarian, hit him with his own philosophical insanity.

[mainpmf]

That's what I did by clicking on your links.

That is not research.

Dude... You can't be honest here no?

I'm saying your sources are pure propaganda.

Do research idiot:

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/nature/nasa-reports-antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum/
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/nature/sun-drop-in-energy-output-is-stronger-than-expected/

Please all of you, I beg you, click on those links.
Click on those links and see by yourself the proud "iamnotback" and his incredible argument of one word: "idiot", one source "www.armstrongeconomics.com" and all those beautiful article not only false, but I guess they're in fact trolls.
Click back on those links iamnotback, and try to find ONE SOURCE of the articles.

Once you admited there is no source, could you please explain me how a freaking 8 lines "article" made by an unknown guy on the internet without any link, source, record or data, is worth anything?

Please just explain that.

-snip- blablabla

Did you see any explanation concerning the fact that his links have 0 sources and are just basic blog articles?

Oh and we can maybe talk about how he didn't even read the nasa article he gives xD

[protokol]

iamnotback, you're a fucking hypocrite.

Another Hitler wolf in "kind, caring, leftist" sheepskin.

These are the most dangerous virus on the planet and we need a forced eradication plan to remove them from the planet.

Ahh, the irony, it burns... 

You post bullshit evidence that is worth nothing, resort to ad hominem attacks when your evidence is questioned, and you even stoop so low as to edit my posts, and quote them out of context. Now you're copying my posts from other threads to try and make a point?

Get back on the meds mate, and if you want to make solid arguments you might want to actually address people's points, rather than call them names like a spoilt child.

You fucking buffoon.

(See, I can do it too, doesn't make me big or clever).

[mainpmf]

iamnotback, you're a fucking hypocrite.

Another Hitler wolf in "kind, caring, leftist" sheepskin.

These are the most dangerous virus on the planet and we need a forced eradication plan to remove them from the planet.

Ahh, the irony, it burns... 

You post bullshit evidence that is worth nothing, resort to ad hominem attacks when your evidence is questioned, and you even stoop so low as to edit my posts, and quote them out of context. Now you're copying my posts from other threads to try and make a point?

Get back on the meds mate, and if you want to make solid arguments you might want to actually address people's points, rather than call them names like a spoilt child.

You fucking buffoon.

(See, I can do it too, doesn't make me big or clever).

Funny part is that you can't.

Even when trying to blatantly insult without reasoning, you can't help but to add at least some logic
Moreover you don't manage to reach the vocabulary of our friend. Still far too sophisticated. "Buffoon" man

Anyway I think we mostly agree on the ecological question!

[trollercoaster]

Here's something you don't see every day, fish snap frozen in a lake, from lake Andes in South Dakota.

[mainpmf]

Here's something you don't see every day, fish snap frozen in a lake, from lake Andes in South Dakota.

Wahou indeed you don't see that everyday!
I got to say I don't even understand. How's that possible?
Isn't it a painting? It looks like a painting. If you could give the source that would be awesome!
Anyway I wouldn't like to be those fishes xD

[noel2123]

Government should know that our mother nature will be destroyed if global warming still continues. Government should do some things to make our own life be protected from some of the effect of global warming. You cannot experience, but from your mind, you should know what do's and dont's for our own mother nature

[bitcoinboy12]

Government should know that our mother nature will be destroyed if global warming still continues. Government should do some things to make our own life be protected from some of the effect of global warming. You cannot experience, but from your mind, you should know what do's and dont's for our own mother nature

We can also help out battle global warming. Everyone then just have to be responsible of what he is doing for, and against, nature. We should practice first what we preach. Then raise awareness and share it to everyone.

[bryant.coleman]

Government should know that our mother nature will be destroyed if global warming still continues. Government should do some things to make our own life be protected from some of the effect of global warming. You cannot experience, but from your mind, you should know what do's and dont's for our own mother nature

The effects of global warming are not uniform everywhere. For some countries, such as the Pacific island nations, preventing further rise in the temperature is a major priority. But for some others, such as Saudi Arabia and China, it is not even a minor issue. And also, there are certain nations which are benefiting from the global warming.

[Sithara007]

We can also help out battle global warming. Everyone then just have to be responsible of what he is doing for, and against, nature. We should practice first what we preach. Then raise awareness and share it to everyone.

Here are a few steps which we can implement, in order to combat global warming:

1. Boycott furniture made from Peruvian, Brazilian and Indonesian timber, as these countries refuse to act against deforestation.
2. Use natural gas instead of gasoline in your vehicles.
3. Purchase solar panels.
4. Practice recycling.
5. Conserve water and electricity.

[iamnotback]

Going to be laughing at your idiots frozen in the northern hemisphere...

The idiot Marxist from the global warming thread comes over here to try his luck at putting his foot in his mouth some more...

80% of the people in the Philippines have Tuberculosis which is a very serious illness spread by coughing. You will catch this. I did. You will then need 6 months of medicines and you will never be guaranteed to be cured. You can relapse later in life.

Incidence of Tuberculosis in Philippines is 322 per 100,000 or 0.3% according to the World Bank.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.TBS.INCD?name_desc=true

Those are active symptomatic TB disease admitted to a hospital for treatment on an annual basis.

It appears to be difficult to get the LTBI rate online, probably because the government does not warn to alarm you idiots about how bad the problem really is. But the doctors have all told me the rate of LTBI is 70 - 80%.

The incidence of latent TB infection is 70 - 80%. Here is one resource that documents the infection rate is 8 to 12 times higher than the smear positive incidence rate:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18235886

Even amongst healthcare workers in the Philippines the LTBI (latent TB) rate was measured at 27%:

http://www.ejbronchology.eg.net/article.asp?issn=1687-8426;year=2015;volume=9;issue=2;spage=183;epage=187;aulast=Abdelghaffar

The following resource says 2.33 billion people have LTBI:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4024230/

Here is a 46% LTBI incidence in a village in China:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4440671/

And healthy people usually don't get tuberculosis from coughing. If that was the case, then the American authorities might have put up a health warning on the travel advisories.

STFU idiot:

When people with TB in their lungs or throat cough, laugh, sneeze, sing, or even talk, the germs that cause TB may be spread into the air. If another person breathes in these germs there is a chance that they will become infected.

[Hydrogen]

Trees and plants store (sequester) carbon dioxide.

The leaves of plants also evaporate water into the atmosphere, which produces rain.

The main cause of drought & climate change is deforestation.

[mainpmf]

AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

iamnotback saying that Sithara007 is a leftist idiot xD

That's so fucking funny!!!
It's like conservatives freaks don't even know what left is and means!!!

"you disagree with me, you're just a leftist idiot that's all!!" xD

So much stupidity in so few posts!!!

[DrPepperJC]

Trees and plants store (sequester) carbon dioxide.

The leaves of plants also evaporate water into the atmosphere, which produces rain.

The main cause of drought & climate change is deforestation.

I agree with you. All carbon dioxide trees could absorb. The problem is that talking about the transition to alternative sources of energy while not forcing consumers of the forest to recover the amount.

[Sithara007]

I agree with you. All carbon dioxide trees could absorb. The problem is that talking about the transition to alternative sources of energy while not forcing consumers of the forest to recover the amount.

Deforestation is actually one of the main reasons for global warming. 13,000,000 hectares of forests are cut down or burned every year, and most of this deforestation occurs in tropical countries such as Brazil, Peru, Indonesia (the current global leader in deforestation) and DRC.

[audaciousbeing]

I believe it is the responsibility of any sane government to protect its citizen and if there are no citizens, I am sure there wont be no government and if they want to continue to be in government, then they need to make sure the citizen will continue to live. In the case of global warming it is their job to regulate such because they are the ones that have the legitimacy to make the policies to make it happen. They fail to provide a good transportation system so we can buy enough cars then they can generate import levy then they should be ready to be held accountable to the consequences of such action.

[mainpmf]

I agree with you. All carbon dioxide trees could absorb. The problem is that talking about the transition to alternative sources of energy while not forcing consumers of the forest to recover the amount.

Deforestation is actually one of the main reasons for global warming. 13,000,000 hectares of forests are cut down or burned every year, and most of this deforestation occurs in tropical countries such as Brazil, Peru, Indonesia (the current global leader in deforestation) and DRC.

Yup yup yup

Fact is that the best way to fight climate change would probably be to reduce the fossil fuels use AND to plant billions of hectares of forest.
But government can't plant trees AND finance wars. So we got our priorities...

[trollercoaster]

What's stopping you leftists from planting trees? Since you believe it is of such importance?

[frendsento]

I believe it is the responsibility of any sane government to protect its citizen and if there are no citizens, I am sure there wont be no government and if they want to continue to be in government, then they need to make sure the citizen will continue to live. In the case of global warming it is their job to regulate such because they are the ones that have the legitimacy to make the policies to make it happen. They fail to provide a good transportation system so we can buy enough cars then they can generate import levy then they should be ready to be held accountable to the consequences of such action.

I believe that the government should protect its citizen in all cost but not all issue should be pass on the government , lets say for example in global warming , global warming is already happening and there is no way the government cant stop it , but in anyway it could be prevented from getting worst , you and me as an individual can actually contribute to prevent global warming from becoming worst , let say by planting trees and any other eco friendly activities that could help the nature and it is not only the government job it is also ours !

[bryant.coleman]

What's stopping you leftists from planting trees? Since you believe it is of such importance?

We are running out of space to plant the trees. In Brazil, most of the deforested land is quickly converted to soybean plantations, to profit from the growing demand from China. The remainder is converted in to ranches. In Indonesia also it is a similar story. The deforested land will be converted in to plantations of oil palm and latex.

[youdamushi]

What's stopping you leftists from planting trees? Since you believe it is of such importance?

The fact that as soon as we plant trees, a company comes to take the land for production purpose.

The problem is not to plant trees.
It's to stop taking them down as soon you feel like it.

[jovs]

What's stopping you leftists from planting trees? Since you believe it is of such importance?

The fact that as soon as we plant trees, a company comes to take the land for production purpose.

The problem is not to plant trees.
It's to stop taking them down as soon you feel like it.

Certainly, the biggest problem of ruining the trees is how can we prevent illegal loggers to take down those trees. The biggest factor why it is occuring is because of poor governance and poor in discipline people. If the government don't tolerate those people to operate like China for example, millions of trees could be save. We must be united on this, this must be stopped.

[bryant.coleman]

Certainly, the biggest problem of ruining the trees is how can we prevent illegal loggers to take down those trees. The biggest factor why it is occuring is because of poor governance and poor in discipline people. If the government don't tolerate those people to operate like China for example, millions of trees could be save. We must be united on this, this must be stopped.

You can't simply blame just the countries where the deforestation occur. You need to look at the bigger picture.

In Brazil, most of the deforestation occur due to the clearing of forest land for soya plantations. Most of the Soya is exported to China. If China bans the Soya exports from Brazil, then the deforestation will stop.

Similarly, most of the deforestation in Peru is a result of illegal Mahogany logging. Most of the Peruvian Mahogany is exported to the US and the EU. Once again, this deforestation will stop if the US/EU bans Peruvian Mahogany.

[iamnotback]

What's stopping you leftists from planting trees? Since you believe it is of such importance?

Notice how they conflated climate and environment, totally veering off course from the subject of this thread.

Don't waste your time arguing with emasculated "men" lacking basic cognitive skills. They are doomed. Let them go.

Our focus should be on strong men. All others are a waste of our precious time and energy.

trollercoaster, unfortunately afaik you are not taking your duty seriously. Please see my posts in the Dark Enlightenment thread. Are you a man?

[burner2014]

What's stopping you leftists from planting trees? Since you believe it is of such importance?

The fact that as soon as we plant trees, a company comes to take the land for production purpose.

The problem is not to plant trees.
It's to stop taking them down as soon you feel like it.

It is really helpful to see that instead of building trees they just build houses and large buildings for their business. And the government who should be the one to minimize those construction activity and should focus on the next generations life but they issue permits allowing it without any further study.

[trollercoaster]

Don't waste your time arguing with emasculated "men" lacking basic cognitive skills. They are doomed. Let them go.

Our focus should be on strong men. All others are a waste of our precious time and energy.

I agree

Are you a man?

Last time I checked 

[mainpmf]

What's stopping you leftists from planting trees? Since you believe it is of such importance?

Don't waste your time arguing with emasculated "men"

Our focus should be on strong men.

Hmm... So you base your argument on the fertiliity and the capacity of a male to last long in bed I guess?

So what about women? They can't discuss with you?

And would that mean that if I have bigger genitals than you I'm more right than you?

I think we have a plain view on your intellectual activity here.

[iamnotback]

Chicken Little bitchez need drama. Because bitchez ain't got no testosterone.

[GooCust04]

There is no global warming. It is a myth! Who remembers about the ozone holes? Once this myth is promoted the media all the equipment manufacturers were forced to switch to a more expensive freon. The profit of the manufacturer of freon was about $ 200 billion.

[Sithara007]

There is no global warming. It is a myth! Who remembers about the ozone holes? Once this myth is promoted the media all the equipment manufacturers were forced to switch to a more expensive freon. The profit of the manufacturer of freon was about $ 200 billion.

It was scientifically proven that the usage of chlorofluorocarbons and carbon tetrachloride in refrigeration was the cause for most of the ozone layer depletion. But I am surprised that you are claiming that the CFCs were replaced with Freons. Freon is a trademark which includes the CFCs and a range of other chemicals. In reality, the chlorofluorocarbons were replaced by chlorodifluoromethane.

[jovs]

What's stopping you leftists from planting trees? Since you believe it is of such importance?

The fact that as soon as we plant trees, a company comes to take the land for production purpose.

The problem is not to plant trees.
It's to stop taking them down as soon you feel like it.

It is really helpful to see that instead of building trees they just build houses and large buildings for their business. And the government who should be the one to minimize those construction activity and should focus on the next generations life but they issue permits allowing it without any further study.

The demand on the trees isn't the problem since we need it to study, build home, daily live purposes and etc. What we need to regulate is improper way of cutting the trees down. We should also plant more trees so that the demand on the trees would be provided by enough supply. Additionaly regulation in cutting of the trees should be also be implimented

[PetroffVany]

What's stopping you leftists from planting trees? Since you believe it is of such importance?

The fact that as soon as we plant trees, a company comes to take the land for production purpose.

The problem is not to plant trees.
It's to stop taking them down as soon you feel like it.

It is really helpful to see that instead of building trees they just build houses and large buildings for their business. And the government who should be the one to minimize those construction activity and should focus on the next generations life but they issue permits allowing it without any further study.

The demand on the trees isn't the problem since we need it to study, build home, daily live purposes and etc. What we need to regulate is improper way of cutting the trees down. We should also plant more trees so that the demand on the trees would be provided by enough supply. Additionaly regulation in cutting of the trees should be also be implimented

Unfortunately when cutting trees only think about how to earn more money. To plant new trees this increases costs and business wants to minimize their costs. Besides a lot of trees cut down to make way for houses.

[iamnotback]

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/climate/global-warming-is-about-destroying-capitalism/

[trollercoaster]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html

[Sithara007]

Unfortunately when cutting trees only think about how to earn more money. To plant new trees this increases costs and business wants to minimize their costs. Besides a lot of trees cut down to make way for houses.

Also, most of the ex-forest land is quickly converted in to ranches and pastures. This is a very profitable business, especially in tropical countries such as Brazil, Peru, Paraguay, Congo, and Indonesia.

[iamnotback]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/climate/whistle-blower-from-noaa-blows-open-global-warming-conspiracy/

[DD-Lex]

Unfortunately when cutting trees only think about how to earn more money. To plant new trees this increases costs and business wants to minimize their costs. Besides a lot of trees cut down to make way for houses.

Also, most of the ex-forest land is quickly converted in to ranches and pastures. This is a very profitable business, especially in tropical countries such as Brazil, Peru, Paraguay, Congo, and Indonesia.

I think that the reason for this situation lies in the misalignment of the international monetary system. The bulk of the very poor live and work to their labor and resources to ensure the prosperity of the developed countries.

[Flamma]

Ah the beauty of global warming! Definitely man made because its us who made this even possible. I mean, we should be taking this seriously. Things will get even worse. I don't want to live in a palnet looking like in the movies Wall-E and Elysium. We should also yry to preserve our natural resources because in the future once its gone, we won't be able to bring it back.

[ridery99]

Ah the beauty of global warming! Definitely man made because its us who made this even possible. I mean, we should be taking this seriously. Things will get even worse. I don't want to live in a palnet looking like in the movies Wall-E and Elysium. We should also yry to preserve our natural resources because in the future once its gone, we won't be able to bring it back.

Resources exist to be consumed. If not by this generation, then by some other. I believe we will never stop using fossil fuels but start to use them more frugally.

[DD-Lex]

Ah the beauty of global warming! Definitely man made because its us who made this even possible. I mean, we should be taking this seriously. Things will get even worse. I don't want to live in a palnet looking like in the movies Wall-E and Elysium. We should also yry to preserve our natural resources because in the future once its gone, we won't be able to bring it back.

Resources exist to be consumed. If not by this generation, then by some other. I believe we will never stop using fossil fuels but start to use them more frugally.

That means we will always use fossil resources? Will not work. Want it or not but sooner or later fossil fuel reserves will run out and the new will only be through billions of years.

[Sithara007]

Ah the beauty of global warming! Definitely man made because its us who made this even possible. I mean, we should be taking this seriously. Things will get even worse. I don't want to live in a palnet looking like in the movies Wall-E and Elysium. We should also yry to preserve our natural resources because in the future once its gone, we won't be able to bring it back.

Resources exist to be consumed. If not by this generation, then by some other. I believe we will never stop using fossil fuels but start to use them more frugally.

That means we will always use fossil resources? Will not work. Want it or not but sooner or later fossil fuel reserves will run out and the new will only be through billions of years.

You are absolutely right about the future usage of the fossil fuels. In the distant future, I am sure that we will be switching to an alternative source of energy. This alternative source can be Hydrogen, electricity, or even Uranium.

[iamnotback]

Rationing of vegetables in UK due to global COOLING:

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/climate/extreme-cold-hitting-europe-creating-food-shortages/

Hope the idiots in this thread have recently taken out a mortgage on a home in a northern climate. Lol.

NOAA caught lying and disagreeing with the UN climate "scientists" (corrupted propagandists is more apt description):

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/climate/the-climate-change-the-sun-is-in-a-downward-cycle/

[mainpmf]

Rationing of vegetables in UK due to global COOLING:

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/climate/extreme-cold-hitting-europe-creating-food-shortages/

Hope the idiots in this thread have recently taken out a mortgage on a home in a northern climate. Lol.

NOAA caught lying and disagreeing with the UN climate "scientists" (corrupted propagandists is more apt description):

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/climate/the-climate-change-the-sun-is-in-a-downward-cycle/

Oh look at the little man still having only one poor site as a source. One poor site with article without any reference... That's funny, how can they make so many accusation without bringing anything as a proof?

Look I can make it too:
"Trump is now a proven Alien coming from ZERGTHUS 8!
You don't believe me? Well this is still true!"

There are as many facts in those two sentences than in all the articles you gave :/
And only you is talking about global warming. No one else.
People are talking about climate change. Not global warming.

[iamnotback]

Interesting assertion:

The Southern region like Australia will see it get warmer in summer as Europe gets cooler in the winter. Things are changing much more rapidly ever since the North Pole reversed and changed direction moving at 55 km per year back in 2000.

This is I presume orthogonal to overall cooling of the earth due to the coming Maunder Minimum.

That's funny, how can they make so many accusation without bringing anything as a proof?

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/uncategorized/noaa-continues-to-try-to-justify-its-criminal-activity/

https://nextgrandminimum.wordpress.com/

[BADecker]

A "Mini Ice Age" Is Coming Soon Says Math Professor's Solar Cycle Model That's 97%

A few months ago, NASA published a study showing that Antarctica is actually gaining more ice than it is losing. They made the announcement after using satellites to examine the heights of the region's ice sheet. The findings contradict the prevailing theory that Antarctica has actually been shrinking, however. The paper is titled "Mass gains of the Antarctic ice sheet exceed losses" and was published in the Journal of Glaciology.

Read more at http://globalwarming-arclein.blogspot.ca/2017/02/a-mini-ice-age-is-coming-soon-says-math.html.

[trollercoaster]

Interesting assertion:

The Southern region like Australia will see it get warmer in summer as Europe gets cooler in the winter. Things are changing much more rapidly ever since the North Pole reversed and changed direction moving at 55 km per year back in 2000.

This is I presume orthogonal to overall cooling of the earth due to the coming Maunder Minimum.

That's funny, how can they make so many accusation without bringing anything as a proof?

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/uncategorized/noaa-continues-to-try-to-justify-its-criminal-activity/

True, with the exception of Tasmania and southern Victoria which feels like it has been cooling for the last 18 months, we have had few days above 30°C down here & usually the grass is scorched this time of year, but it is still green 

[iamnotback]

True, with the exception of Tasmania and southern Victoria which feels like it has been cooling for the last 18 months, we have had few days above 30°C down here & usually the grass is scorched this time of year, but it is still green  

I saw a news article it is snowing in Tasmania while the rest of the nation swelters. Will be interesting to see what happens during future winters down under.

Maybe it is an exception below a certain latitude?



Edit: looking at the historical climate of Australia, the warm weather doesn't seem to be abnormal but perhaps the snow in Tasmania in the summer is abnormal:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Australia

Edit#2: note on Figure 2 on page 3, that as the northern hemisphere warmed up to year 2000 (the year Armstrong says the poles movement abruptly changed direction), the Andes region was cooling, yet since 2000 as the northern hemisphere cools, the Andes region is warming and its neighboring hot regions are moderating to less extremely hot:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Eric_Chassignet/publication/273740018_Evolution_of_land_surface_air_temperature_trend/links/55413ed20cf23222273155cf.pdf?disableCoverPage=true#page=3

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/05/140504133207.htm

Edit#3: appears the southern South America became colder during the last LIA:

https://www.google.com/search?q=south+america+in+little+ice+age

But the plains and north may have suffered drought and become warmer:

http://www.co2science.org/subject/s/summaries/southamericaiceage.php

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226676731_The_Little_Ice_Age_in_Southern_South_America_Proxy_and_Model_Based_Evidence

So that seems to be consistent with the pattern of changes @trollercoaster is observing in Australia.

[Sithara007]

True, with the exception of Tasmania and southern Victoria which feels like it has been cooling for the last 18 months, we have had few days above 30°C down here & usually the grass is scorched this time of year, but it is still green 

It may be cooling for the last few months, but no one knows when the next major drought is about to come. Australia has suffered numerous droughts during the past two decades, and I suspect that the main reason for that is climate change.

[trollercoaster]

Yeah natural climate change, the Australian grasslands and deserts dried up long before white fella set foot here..  

[wowanstrong]

True, with the exception of Tasmania and southern Victoria which feels like it has been cooling for the last 18 months, we have had few days above 30°C down here & usually the grass is scorched this time of year, but it is still green 

It may be cooling for the last few months, but no one knows when the next major drought is about to come. Australia has suffered numerous droughts during the past two decades, and I suspect that the main reason for that is climate change.

I don't think so. If warming leads to the fact that the glaciers are melting and rising global sea level, on the contrary, the climate needs to hydrate. At high temperatures, high humidity. Where is all this?

[mainpmf]

Yeah natural climate change, the Australian grasslands and deserts dried up long before white fella set foot here..  

Sure!
But there is something completely unnatural on how fast things are changing and the pace of evolution of those changes...
Sure it's also a natural change, but natural change can't go so fast!

[bryant.coleman]

True, with the exception of Tasmania and southern Victoria which feels like it has been cooling for the last 18 months, we have had few days above 30°C down here & usually the grass is scorched this time of year, but it is still green 

It may be cooling for the last few months, but no one knows when the next major drought is about to come. Australia has suffered numerous droughts during the past two decades, and I suspect that the main reason for that is climate change.

I don't think so. If warming leads to the fact that the glaciers are melting and rising global sea level, on the contrary, the climate needs to hydrate. At high temperatures, high humidity. Where is all this?

High temperature means a higher saturation point for water vapour. So more amount of water vapour will be held in the atmosphere. But eventually, this water vapour will be converted into rain or snow. But the problem is that rain occurs only where a stream of water vapor meets with cold air. Such regions exist mostly along the tropical forests. So for the other areas, there will not be any noticeable change in the rainfall.

[ovvidiy]

True, with the exception of Tasmania and southern Victoria which feels like it has been cooling for the last 18 months, we have had few days above 30°C down here & usually the grass is scorched this time of year, but it is still green 

It may be cooling for the last few months, but no one knows when the next major drought is about to come. Australia has suffered numerous droughts during the past two decades, and I suspect that the main reason for that is climate change.

I don't think so. If warming leads to the fact that the glaciers are melting and rising global sea level, on the contrary, the climate needs to hydrate. At high temperatures, high humidity. Where is all this?

High temperature means a higher saturation point for water vapour. So more amount of water vapour will be held in the atmosphere. But eventually, this water vapour will be converted into rain or snow. But the problem is that rain occurs only where a stream of water vapor meets with cold air. Such regions exist mostly along the tropical forests. So for the other areas, there will not be any noticeable change in the rainfall.

In fact, flows of cold air can be a lot. This is due to the wind and rivers, seas and oceans, and forests. The rain will be everywhere. Besides rise of the groundwater level. I just don't see it.

[trollercoaster]

Yeah natural climate change, the Australian grasslands and deserts dried up long before white fella set foot here..  

Sure!
But there is something completely unnatural on how fast things are changing and the pace of evolution of those changes...
Sure it's also a natural change, but natural change can't go so fast!

Nonsense, it is completely natural, extreme droughts followed by flooding year to year is nothing new.
http://abc.net.au/news/2014-02-26/100-years-of-drought/5282030

[chachaa]

Yeah natural climate change, the Australian grasslands and deserts dried up long before white fella set foot here..  

Sure!
But there is something completely unnatural on how fast things are changing and the pace of evolution of those changes...
Sure it's also a natural change, but natural change can't go so fast!

Nonsense, it is completely natural, extreme droughts followed by flooding year to year is nothing new.
http://abc.net.au/news/2014-02-26/100-years-of-drought/5282030

I also agree with you. I don't see any climate change. Really where ruthlessly cut down forests there are problems with the consequences of natural disasters, but it is not associated with any global warming. People are to blame.

[youdamushi]

Yeah natural climate change, the Australian grasslands and deserts dried up long before white fella set foot here..  

Sure!
But there is something completely unnatural on how fast things are changing and the pace of evolution of those changes...
Sure it's also a natural change, but natural change can't go so fast!

Nonsense, it is completely natural, extreme droughts followed by flooding year to year is nothing new.
http://abc.net.au/news/2014-02-26/100-years-of-drought/5282030

I also agree with you. I don't see any climate change. Really where ruthlessly cut down forests there are problems with the consequences of natural disasters, but it is not associated with any global warming. People are to blame.

People are to blame.
That's the main problem.
That's what they all refuse to hear.
That THEY (WE) are the problem and that we are responsible for all that's happening.
But until tornados become a daily phenomenon on the White House they won't see the reality.

[mainpmf]

Yeah natural climate change, the Australian grasslands and deserts dried up long before white fella set foot here..  

Sure!
But there is something completely unnatural on how fast things are changing and the pace of evolution of those changes...
Sure it's also a natural change, but natural change can't go so fast!

Nonsense, it is completely natural, extreme droughts followed by flooding year to year is nothing new.
http://abc.net.au/news/2014-02-26/100-years-of-drought/5282030

Few things:
-It seems to me that the recent maps have a lot of "highest" or "lowest" records
-I'm not sure what you're showing is the best way to have anything accurate, there isn't a single begining of actual data just rough estimations of high and low
-I don't know if considering droughts and floods are the best way to consider the impact of climate change

[Aikonio]

Yeah natural climate change, the Australian grasslands and deserts dried up long before white fella set foot here..  

Sure!
But there is something completely unnatural on how fast things are changing and the pace of evolution of those changes...
Sure it's also a natural change, but natural change can't go so fast!

Nonsense, it is completely natural, extreme droughts followed by flooding year to year is nothing new.
http://abc.net.au/news/2014-02-26/100-years-of-drought/5282030

Few things:
-It seems to me that the recent maps have a lot of "highest" or "lowest" records
-I'm not sure what you're showing is the best way to have anything accurate, there isn't a single begining of actual data just rough estimations of high and low
-I don't know if considering droughts and floods are the best way to consider the impact of climate change

And you thought about the fact that such effects from natural disasters are associated not only with global warming but with the fact that people are ruthlessly destroying the forest. Maybe this is the reason?

[youdamushi]

And you thought about the fact that such effects from natural disasters are associated not only with global warming but with the fact that people are ruthlessly destroying the forest. Maybe this is the reason?

Only the idiots are talking about global warming.
They're mainly people being huge climate deniers that yell that "global warming" makes no sense and is a false theory.
They're perfectly right. That's why any intelligent person talks about climate change, which is a phenomenon whose causes are varied and numerous. Deforestation being one of them.

[pseexh]

And you thought about the fact that such effects from natural disasters are associated not only with global warming but with the fact that people are ruthlessly destroying the forest. Maybe this is the reason?

Only the idiots are talking about global warming.
They're mainly people being huge climate deniers that yell that "global warming" makes no sense and is a false theory.
They're perfectly right. That's why any intelligent person talks about climate change, which is a phenomenon whose causes are varied and numerous. Deforestation being one of them.

I also agree with you. No global warming does not exist. It's just a story invented by scientists on the instructions of the corrupt government to steal taxpayers ' money. All their theories are false and have nothing to do with reality.

[youdamushi]

And you thought about the fact that such effects from natural disasters are associated not only with global warming but with the fact that people are ruthlessly destroying the forest. Maybe this is the reason?

Only the idiots are talking about global warming.
They're mainly people being huge climate deniers that yell that "global warming" makes no sense and is a false theory.
They're perfectly right. That's why any intelligent person talks about climate change, which is a phenomenon whose causes are varied and numerous. Deforestation being one of them.

I also agree with you. No global warming does not exist. It's just a story invented by scientists on the instructions of the corrupt government to steal taxpayers ' money. All their theories are false and have nothing to do with reality.

OMG LOOK AT THIS FREAKING SPAMMERS
The matchpool spam is driving me mad!!!
I'm saying EXACTLY THE CONTRARY so you can have your opinion but DON'T START WITH "I agree with you" no you don't you would understand it if you at least took the time to read!!!

Is there a way to answer this freaking agressive spam?

[youdamushi]

And you thought about the fact that such effects from natural disasters are associated not only with global warming but with the fact that people are ruthlessly destroying the forest. Maybe this is the reason?

Only the idiots are talking about global warming.
They're mainly people being huge climate deniers that yell that "global warming" makes no sense and is a false theory.
They're perfectly right. That's why any intelligent person talks about climate change, which is a phenomenon whose causes are varied and numerous. Deforestation being one of them.

I also agree with you. No global warming does not exist. It's just a story invented by scientists on the instructions of the corrupt government to steal taxpayers ' money. All their theories are false and have nothing to do with reality.

OMG LOOK AT THIS FREAKING SPAMMERS
The matchpool spam is driving me mad!!!
I'm saying EXACTLY THE CONTRARY so you can have your opinion but DON'T START WITH "I agree with you" no you don't you would understand it if you at least took the time to read!!!

Is there a way to answer this freaking agressive spam?

I don't see any global warming. Yes indeed we see periodically natural disasters, but it is related with human activities and not climate change. Where are those who cried about the increase of ozone holes?

And this one just quoted the last answer and put a random sentence!!! It's not even linked to what I said ><

[Sithara007]

I also agree with you. No global warming does not exist. It's just a story invented by scientists on the instructions of the corrupt government to steal taxpayers ' money. All their theories are false and have nothing to do with reality.

If it is a myth, then how can you explain the increasing concentration of carbon di oxide in the atmosphere? During the last 200 years, the concentration has increased by around 30%. Also, how are you going to explain the rising sea level?

[mainpmf]

I also agree with you. No global warming does not exist. It's just a story invented by scientists on the instructions of the corrupt government to steal taxpayers ' money. All their theories are false and have nothing to do with reality.

If it is a myth, then how can you explain the increasing concentration of carbon di oxide in the atmosphere? During the last 200 years, the concentration has increased by around 30%. Also, how are you going to explain the rising sea level?

That's funny, how can you accept evidences and facts on such questions but still have the ideology of a Middle Age peasant concerning other questions like gay rights?

[Altas]

sorry! I cannot agree with you. What scientists talk about global warming is true. We can see the differences around us. To see the difference, we have to come out from our a/c rooms and cars. If you go to sea shore you can see the water level in the sea. the sea water level increases every year it happens because of global warming. 

[trollercoaster]

Brainwashing starts early: http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/15/california-schools-cut-meat-cheese-from-lunches-to-fight-global-warming/ 

[iamnotback]

Brainwashing starts early: http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/15/california-schools-cut-meat-cheese-from-lunches-to-fight-global-warming/  

Who needs highly nutritional meat and cheese when the high calorie high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) Frankenfood is prolific in so many of our manufactured food and drinks.

Research done by his group at the Children’s Hospital Oakland Research Institute found that free fructose from HFCS requires more energy to be absorbed by the gut and soaks up two phosphorous molecules from ATP (our body’s energy source).
This depletes the energy fuel source, or ATP, in our gut required to maintain the integrity of our intestinal lining. Little “tight junctions” cement each intestinal cell together preventing food and bacteria from “leaking” across the intestinal membrane and triggering an immune reaction and body wide inflammation.

High doses of free fructose have been proven to literally punch holes in the intestinal lining allowing nasty byproducts of toxic gut bacteria and partially digested food proteins to enter your blood stream and trigger the inflammation that we know is at the root of obesity, diabetes, cancer, heart disease, dementia, and accelerated aging. Naturally occurring fructose in fruit is part of a complex of nutrients and fiber that doesn’t exhibit the same biological effects as the free high fructose doses found in “corn sugar”.

Conspiracy couldn't possibly be true:

And HFCS is cheaper than sugar because of the government farm bill corn subsidies. Products with HFCS are sweeter and cheaper than products made with cane sugar. This allowed for the average soda size to balloon from 8 ounces to 20 ounces with little financial costs to manufacturers but great human costs of increased obesity, diabetes, and chronic disease.

[iamnotback]

The environmentalist idiots in this thread who conflate climate with environment, are completely blind to the reality of what is coming in Stage #5 of our future.

Your socialist Western civilization is collapsing into dust.

[Sithara007]

That's funny, how can you accept evidences and facts on such questions but still have the ideology of a Middle Age peasant concerning other questions like gay rights?

So you believe that to become progressive, then one should support gay rights? Tell that to the Japanese. According to the opinion polls, the majority of the Japanese males are opposed to gay rights. And I consider them as the most intelligent people on earth right now.

[mainpmf]

The environmentalist idiots in this thread who conflate climate with environment, are completely blind to the reality of what is coming in Stage #5 of our future.

Your socialist Western civilization is collapsing into dust.

WTF are you saying?
What is socialist in our culture and civilization? Oo
Our Western civilization is collapsing yeah, but it is a fucking capitalist one it has nothing to do with socialism!
Nest you're going to tell me USA is communist? xD

[mainpmf]

That's funny, how can you accept evidences and facts on such questions but still have the ideology of a Middle Age peasant concerning other questions like gay rights?

So you believe that to become progressive, then one should support gay rights? Tell that to the Japanese. According to the opinion polls, the majority of the Japanese males are opposed to gay rights. And I consider them as the most intelligent people on earth right now.

Oh you don't have to support. You can also just not care about it. That's a fair point of view to say "I'm not gay, I don't care this doesn't concern me", you don't have to actively support it no of course.

But opposing gay rights is being stupid mainly because there is no facts or logic to support such action. Or at least I never read one and can't figure one.
And Japanese are dumb as fuck. Did you ever go to Japan? This is a crazy collapsing society. They have 0 social intelligence and are only good in science.

[Altas]

Global warming happens because of human mistakes. We use more carbon in our daily life, it is the main cause for global warming. If we starts to reduce the usage of the vehicles and air condition, refrigerator we can save our earth. When we through out our selfishness we can build a new world.   

[bryant.coleman]

And Japanese are dumb as fuck. Did you ever go to Japan? This is a crazy collapsing society. They have 0 social intelligence and are only good in science.

The Japanese automobiles and electronics are the best in the world. Their innovation is unbelievable. I agree that Japan contributes to more than 50% of the weirdness in the world. But weirdness is very common among super-intelligent people. For example, Friedrich von Schiller had a fetish for the smell of rotten apples. Benjamin Franklin had a habit of standing by the window completely naked, and flashing to the passerby.

[criptix]

And Japanese are dumb as fuck. Did you ever go to Japan? This is a crazy collapsing society. They have 0 social intelligence and are only good in science.

The Japanese automobiles and electronics are the best in the world. Their innovation is unbelievable. I agree that Japan contributes to more than 50% of the weirdness in the world. But weirdness is very common among super-intelligent people. For example, Friedrich von Schiller had a fetish for the smell of rotten apples. Benjamin Franklin had a habit of standing by the window completely naked, and flashing to the passerby.

Herbivore man nuff said (they made up to 70% of japanese men).
It is pretty much the same as gay if you view it under the light of reproduction.

[mainpmf]

And Japanese are dumb as fuck. Did you ever go to Japan? This is a crazy collapsing society. They have 0 social intelligence and are only good in science.

The Japanese automobiles and electronics are the best in the world. Their innovation is unbelievable. I agree that Japan contributes to more than 50% of the weirdness in the world. But weirdness is very common among super-intelligent people. For example, Friedrich von Schiller had a fetish for the smell of rotten apples. Benjamin Franklin had a habit of standing by the window completely naked, and flashing to the passerby.

See my answer above.
They're good in science that's all.
They're a collapsing society and people excellent at science and unable to have any social intelligence.
If you believe only cold scientific thinking is necessary for mankind evolution just say it and I'll give you a short lesson on evolution

[criptix]

Rationing of vegetables in UK due to global COOLING:

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/climate/extreme-cold-hitting-europe-creating-food-shortages/

Hope the idiots in this thread have recently taken out a mortgage on a home in a northern climate. Lol.

NOAA caught lying and disagreeing with the UN climate "scientists" (corrupted propagandists is more apt description):

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/climate/the-climate-change-the-sun-is-in-a-downward-cycle/

I read a study from 2014/15 about the coming grand minimum and its possible effects:

Regional climate impacts of a possible future grand solar minimum

The impact seems small like around the order of 1/10th of a degree on average.

[iamnotback]

I read a study from 2014/15 about the coming grand minimum and its possible effects:

Regional climate impacts of a possible future grand solar minimum

The impact seems small like around the order of 1/10th of a degree on average.

That Nature journal is a controlled propaganda sourcegatekeeper. Dig more and you will find out it will be worse than that. We are headed into another LIA, but also factor in that the magnetic poles are moving at a very rapid rate in an opposite direction since 2000 coincident with the change from global warming to cooling which could exacerbate climate upheaval:

Things are changing much more rapidly ever since the North Pole reversed and changed direction moving at 55 km per year back in 2000.

https://nextgrandminimum.wordpress.com/

[youdamushi]

That Nature journal is a controlled propaganda source. Dig more and you will find out it will be worse than that. We are headed into another LIA, but also factor in that the magnetic poles are moving at a very rapid rate in an opposite direction since 2000 coincident with the change from global warming to cooling which could exacerbate climate upheaval:

Funny how all your links without any kind of sources are heavily trustable but any source we give that doesn't go like you is a controlled propaganda source xD

[iamnotback]

That Nature journal is a controlled propaganda sourcegatekeeper. Dig more and you will find out it will be worse than that. We are headed into another LIA, but also factor in that the magnetic poles are moving at a very rapid rate in an opposite direction since 2000 coincident with the change from global warming to cooling which could exacerbate climate upheaval:

Funny how all your links without any kind of sources are heavily trustable but any source we give that doesn't go like you is a controlled propaganda source xD

Okay Pocahontas.

Most people wouldn't be capable of discerning facts if they were a tree that hit them in the face.

[iamnotback]

Facts tree hits face of a leftist (dumbass was riding a bicycle in front of a protest march while not looking out for facts):

http://blog.jim.com/global-warming/defunding-the-left/

Leftist gets up thinks he only ran into a tree and carries on oblivious to the bark (gouges deficiencies) embedded in his face.

[trollercoaster]

[youdamushi]

Facts tree hits face of a leftist (dumbass was riding a bicycle in front of a protest march while not looking out for facts):

http://blog.jim.com/global-warming/defunding-the-left/

Leftist gets up thinks he only ran into a tree and carries on oblivious to the bark (gouges deficiencies) embedded in his face.

Sure, clearly cutting scientific research budget is the best way to gather "facts" and is clearly the best way to build a better future for next generation :/

What a great idea.
Stop research, build a wall and raise military budget.
That can't be a mistake.

[trollercoaster]

Sure, clearly cutting scientific research budget is the best way to gather "facts" and is clearly the best way to build a better future for next generation :/

What a great idea.
Stop research, build a wall and raise military budget.
That can't be a mistake.

When did it become scientific to manipulate data to force a pre determined outcome? How does this build a better future? What are you drinking/smoking/snorting/rimming? I want some.
They abandoned science when the facts didn't fit to their political agenda, nothing of value will be lost.

[trollercoaster]

http://news.wisc.edu/from-rocks-in-colorado-evidence-of-a-chaotic-solar-system/

[iamnotback]

http://news.wisc.edu/from-rocks-in-colorado-evidence-of-a-chaotic-solar-system/

You probably found that link here:

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/climate/more-evidence-against-global-warming-surfaces/

[youdamushi]

Sure, clearly cutting scientific research budget is the best way to gather "facts" and is clearly the best way to build a better future for next generation :/

What a great idea.
Stop research, build a wall and raise military budget.
That can't be a mistake.

When did it become scientific to manipulate data to force a pre determined outcome? How does this build a better future? What are you drinking/smoking/snorting/rimming? I want some.
They abandoned science when the facts didn't fit to their political agenda, nothing of value will be lost.

Oh so you have the proof of manipulated data?
Please provide them, every scientific work is published only after peer review, RANDOMIZED peer review, that would mean that the whole scientific world is lying.
Please show us how the brilliant scientist you are found the proof of the lies of the whole scientific world.

[trollercoaster]

Haha I can't be fucked highlighting the evidence already linked in this thread, it's there for anyone who isn't a dense retard to put the pieces together for themselves.

[iamnotback]

Haha I can't be fucked highlighting the evidence already linked in this thread, it's there for anyone who isn't a dense retard to put the pieces together for themselves.

Here is an excellent assimilation:

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/climate/geologist-blows-global-warming-away-before-british-parliament/

[mainpmf]

Haha I can't be fucked highlighting the evidence already linked in this thread, it's there for anyone who isn't a dense retard to put the pieces together for themselves.

Here is an excellent assimilation:

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/climate/geologist-blows-global-warming-away-before-british-parliament/

Oh my god, a video with someone I don't know speaking without anything to back him up!

Now I would be a dense retard to not believe this random man indeed! xD

[iamnotback]

Now I would be a dense retard

Correct.

[noodle_dam]

They showed China Bejing fog free which was cleared with lowing down car emissions for a week and not allowing coal burning during cold winter months. But then back to doing that once their presentation to their guest are over.
Then back to destroying their own people's health in the sense of saving money at the cost of people's lives and their countries environment.
All for a buck or two there. That's all they really care about.

[iamnotback]

They showed China Bejing fog free which was cleared with lowing down car emissions for a week and not allowing coal burning during cold winter months. But then back to doing that once their presentation to their guest are over.
Then back to destroying their own people's health in the sense of saving money at the cost of people's lives and their countries environment.
All for a buck or two there. That's all they really care about.

As if the local environment has anything to do with the global climate. Did you not pay attention to the subject of this thread.

[popcorn1]

What a load of bullshit . The 1 % worked hard  ..

Man i work on a building site that's hard work..Try being a labourer for 4 Bricklayers .

THEY GOT LUCKY..Just being in the right spot at the right time LUCK.

Even when your born people are born lucky. How you ask..
Well imagine you could be born to a CRACK HEAD mum and dad or born to multi millionaire .
Right there your born lucky if born from the millionaire.

Now no one is disputing that people don't work hard for there money   BUT   you would work hard if you knew the government give you a multi billion pound contract and your cut was 100s of millions.

Did the guy work harder than the farmer in India struggling to get by?..
Did the guy work harder than a nurse working 16 hours a day?..
Did the guy work harder than labourer for 4 bricklayers..

Now we come to inventing No one in life cares if people make money of inventing GOOD LUCK to them..
Most people have no problems with people who invent make good cakes and mass produce them
GOOD LUCK TO THEM..

But what most people don't like is when the 1 % pay politicians to do them favours..
LIKE ..CUTTING TAXES FOR THE 1%. people earning over 200k they now pay 12% instead of 35% that's what
the 1% do..
Or let me have that railway contract and i will give you the politician 1 million dollars as a backhander..
Or let me put my money into making weapons  we will cause a war and make loads of money..
Yer the public will have to buy all these weapons that cost 30k but we will sell them for 120k..
Yer just keep firing them and we will have to replace them..KERR CHING

SO 1 QUESTION I WOULD LIKE TO ASK PEOPLE IS..

If you made a billion dollars in profit flat out profit  how much in tax should you pay..

You get to know a lot about a person when they answer the question

HOW MUCH TAX SHOULD YOU PAY   Over the year off 1 billion in profit..
I think 700 to 800 million in tax should be paid to the government for schools and what not .

LIFE IS LUCK  .Your lucky your not born in the DESERT  ..

SOCIETY NEEDS TO GIVE BACK IF THEY HAVE SO MUCH.  IT'S LAW

YOUR GREED WILL KILL YOUR OWN RICHES ..
If the few take it all nothing will be left for the few to sell too.

What you said below is a load of BULLSHIT..

Please spread this message to the spoiled-brat Millennials

I know politics is not your interest. But you are smart enough to understand why "everything equal" is always horrific failure that leads to war and megadeath. Please read this quote and understand why you must stop teaching your friends and kids the bullshit about "the rich are evil and everything must be equal". The Ten Commandments tell us not to covet what our neighbor has (and that includes accusing every rich person of being corrupt when in fact many people get rich by hard work!). The "99% versus 1%" movement is Satan whoreship!






 

[trollercoaster]

You again.. please stop posting after smoking meth.

[Sithara007]

They showed China Bejing fog free which was cleared with lowing down car emissions for a week and not allowing coal burning during cold winter months. But then back to doing that once their presentation to their guest are over.
Then back to destroying their own people's health in the sense of saving money at the cost of people's lives and their countries environment.
All for a buck or two there. That's all they really care about.

I don't understand why the Chinese continue to operate these coal-fired thermal power plants, when they can easily get shipments of natural gas from their neighbors such as Russia and Turkmenistan. It would have been fine if China was producing all the coal it required. But now they are importing coal from Indonesia, Russia and North Korea.

[popcorn1]

You again.. please stop posting after smoking meth.

Yes me again HITLER .

You like to make money and drive down the roads that you never paid for ..
Well if no one payed tax be no roads or no education..

Want to keep all your money then we need ..

Elon Musk says Universal Basic Income is “going to be necessary ...
Video for universal income elon musk▶ 1:57
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6HPdNBicM8


Now trollercoaster will you stop following me after smoking your dads dick.

[popcorn1]

Bill Gates the robot that takes your job should pay taxes - YouTube
Video for bill gates tax the robots youtube▶ 1:44
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpsAVemuT5I
18 Feb 2017 - Uploaded by Ivan Derevyanko
Bill Gates the robot that takes your job should pay taxes.

Now bill gates i love you BUT why tax the robots ..
You see i am a robot and my boss doesn't pay me anything he gives me a bit of oil now and again but that's about it..  Unless you got change of a NUT and BOLT we don't have any money .

I have a better idea TAX THE BOSS FROM HIS PROFITS  ..

But i been saying for many a year that if we don't pay some sort of universal income life will get crazy..

Tensions in Paris as children attacked with knives for being 'too rich
www.express.co.uk › News › World
28 Jan 2017 - Police in France recorded more than 200 attacks on Chinese immigrants last .... Another added: "The Chinese have become too rich in France.

The French Revolution was a revolution in France from 1789 to 1799. It led to ... This made them dislike the rich nobles, who had the money to eat well and build huge houses. ... On 14 July 1789, the people decided to attack the Bastille prison.

The SNOBBY RICH are so far away from reality  ..OH AND IT'S GOING TO GET WELL WORSE..

[popcorn1]

More bullshit.

To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed. Could not be any simpler than that.

SO WHY DO PEOPLE GET RICHER AND RICHER.. .

So this guy is saying people get lazy if they get free money..?

So explain why does someone who's parents are rich   and give them everything in life .. I.E FREE MONEY
why do they go on to make good money in life ..

Is Ivanka trump not ambitious ..She be just chilling and doing nothing according to you..

It's total bullshit if people make money they want to make more..

You snobby rich go by people who are on benefits ..
The benefit system takes the money away if you find work..And if you take it away the unskilled pay more back in rent than what they can get in benefits..

That's why a lot stay on benefits    and because the benefit system has snoops   they are scared to work on the side in case they get caught..

Now in the 1970s the low skilled workers always claimed benefits and worked on the side ..
You see if you are low skilled and have to pay rent most of your money is gone.
Then the food and electricity .

Benefits cheat mum used 35k welfare handouts to buy SECOND home ...
/benefits-cheat-mum-used-welfare-handouts-to-buy-second-...
6 Oct 2016 - A BENEFITS cheat mum falsely claimed thousands of pounds to buy a ... The first home of Rejiya Mukith, who has avoided jail after falsely ..


Now why didn't she just not make any more money SHE WAS ON BENEFITS..
So did she decide not to make any more money..

NO SHE BOUGHT A SECOND HOME ..

SO DOES IT MAKE PEOPLE LAZY..ANSWER FUCKING NO .

SO STOP TALKING BULLSHIT..Because mummy and daddy give you a good start in life .

[popcorn1]

2 lions in 2 cages     feed 1 lion once a week  and feed the other lion every day   which lion will be the craziest ?

Well just think us HUMANS are the worst predators on this planet..  Much worse than a lion.

So to the rich like the lion fed everyday .Watch out for the lions fed once a week because if no universal income
I.E no benefits the crazy lions will attack..IT'S NATURE ..

[trollercoaster]

I just enjoyed a nice cruise with my family, completely paid for by shitcoin trading profits.
Blah blah blah, you think my daddy gave me anything? He was an alcoholic (like you, most brick layers are alcoholics) and my mother worked in a pizza shop, the only thing they gave me was examples of what not to do.

What are you so butthurt about? Your rant is off topic, you should really stop smoking meth, it's harming your mental health. No one owes you an income either you entitled filthy parasite, so come try and take it.

And your hero elon musk is just a modern day bolshevik, his UBI revolution will fail just the same as 1917, and you UBI leeches will be culled off.  

[yellow1]

man made of global warning..some of usually have mining...causes of global warming is cutting trees cause floods and flash floods,burning a plastic it become thin our ozone layer.. the government should act how to stop it and to take care of our environment..most of all is felt the effect of global warming.

[Vikash kumar]

It is true that man made global warming .now aday population of the world is gradually  increases due to which living space have used to adjust .so they have used to deforestaion so the no. Of plants gradually decreases and at the result of this global warming increases.global warming is such inbalaced  condition of nature in which we feel access rise in invironment or atmospheric temperature  due to which plants and animal are died so for the protection of it and make balance with invironment the goveronment has to make band on deforestation and make many types of slogans regarding this for safe of human life.