Article :
A few simple questions for climate fanatics
By Jack Hellner
President Obama, Bernie Sanders, and Hillary Clinton state that climate change is more dangerous to future generations than terrorism. They advocate destroying industries that have greatly improved our quality and length of life. I believe that the American people are entitled to some actual scientific facts instead of talking points. Here are some questions for the global warming bandwagon.
In the 1920s, scientists were warning that because of warming and the melting ice, coastal cities would soon disappear. Why were they wrong then, and why are the same warnings correct today? How did the Earth cool so much from 1945 to 1976 that the experts were warning about a disastrous ice age if rising CO2, rapidly increasing populations, industrialization, and fossil fuels cause warming?
According to UCAR (the Universal Corporation for Atmospheric Research) the temperature today is around 1.53 degrees warmer than 1880. Wouldn't that be within the margin of error, especially since the Little Ice Age ended around 1800?
According to scientific studies, CO2 was much higher during the ice age – 2,000-8,000 parts per million vs. 400 today. If CO2 causes warming, why wasn't the Earth warmer then than it is today?
Recently, the U.S. attorney general said the Justice Department is considering bringing legal action against people who will not go along on climate change caused by humans. Is it any wonder that scientists who are skeptics won't speak out when their livelihood is threatened?
Shouldn't the media do some simple research instead of just repeating the talking points that humans cause climate change?
We should all remember that science is almost never settled. There is continuous evolution in scientific thought. Why is there such a great effort to shut off debate on climate change?
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/03/a_few_simple_questions_for_climate_fanatics.html#ixzz42yYkrOcr
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
And Raz, shut the fuck off.
Like right now.
Quote from: Siege on March 15, 2016, 07:54:44 AM
In the 1920s, scientists were warning that because of warming and the melting ice, coastal cities would soon disappear. Why were they wrong then, and why are the same warnings correct today? How did the Earth cool so much from 1945 to 1976 that the experts were warning about a disastrous ice age if rising CO2, rapidly increasing populations, industrialization, and fossil fuels cause warming?
Links to appropriate studies?
QuoteAccording to UCAR (the Universal Corporation for Atmospheric Research) the temperature today is around 1.53 degrees warmer than 1880. Wouldn't that be within the margin of error, especially since the Little Ice Age ended around 1800?
Tell me more about error margins in temperature readings.
QuoteAccording to scientific studies, CO2 was much higher during the ice age – 2,000-8,000 parts per million vs. 400 today. If CO2 causes warming, why wasn't the Earth warmer then than it is today?
Studies? Link?
QuoteRecently, the U.S. attorney general said the Justice Department is considering bringing legal action against people who will not go along on climate change caused by humans. Is it any wonder that scientists who are skeptics won't speak out when their livelihood is threatened?
I don't know what this means. What sort of legal action? What exactly was said? What does 'going along' mean in a legal sense? In any case there are 150+ other countries that can do research that are no in the US if needed. Unless...OMG EVERY SINGLE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT IN THE WORLD IS IN ON IT!!!111 OMG SIEGE.
QuoteShouldn't the media do some simple research instead of just repeating the talking points that humans cause climate change?
Indeed. So lets see some evidence instead of repeating talking points.
This is more bunk than The Bunk from "The Wire".
You're a fucking eejit, Siege.
Then I have a simple question for you, Siege. Why do almost the entire scientific community choose to mislead humanity into giving up the vital industries for a fake threat? What do these scientists and academics gain by lying to us?
If you're skeptical that carbon dioxide causes warming, you can conduct your own experiment with dry ice and some mason jars. http://www.usc.edu/CSSF/History/2006/Projects/S0607.pdf (http://www.usc.edu/CSSF/History/2006/Projects/S0607.pdf)
Quote from: Valmy on March 15, 2016, 08:09:19 AM
QuoteAccording to scientific studies, CO2 was much higher during the ice age – 2,000-8,000 parts per million vs. 400 today. If CO2 causes warming, why wasn't the Earth warmer then than it is today?
Studies? Link?
These are all pretty silly but this one is by far the goofiest since it is blatantly lying and not just talking about what people used to believe.
1. There have been several ice ages, not just one.
2. There are spikes right after each ice age where the temperature and CO2 levels both rise very fast.
3. Those spikes peak around 300 ppm of CO2, ~100 ppm lower than our current level.
As an aside I don't get the argument "people used to state X, which contradicts the current theory Y. How can you possibly believe these people?" I suppose it is tied into some sort of belief that people have access to absolute and irrevocable truth, and that therefore any change in understanding is suspect and a sign of weakness. Is it possible to even understand how science works with that kind of mindset?
Quote from: Siege on March 15, 2016, 07:58:04 AM
And Raz, shut the fuck off.
Nah.
If these simple questions are answered will Mr. Hellner and Siege stop this climate denial nonsense?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 15, 2016, 10:27:00 AM
Quote from: Siege on March 15, 2016, 07:58:04 AM
And Raz, shut the fuck off.
Nah.
If these simple questions are answered will Mr. Hellner and Siege stop this climate denial nonsense?
Doubtful.
Siege wouldn't stop being silly until the Moon fell down on him and showed signs of human activity there.
Lol.
Climate fanatics.
It's the climate change deniers who are the only climate fanatics :contract:
Quote from: Monoriu on March 15, 2016, 09:07:39 AM
Then I have a simple question for you, Siege. Why do almost the entire scientific community choose to mislead humanity into giving up the vital industries for a fake threat? What do these scientists and academics gain by lying to us?
Godless people. They lost their Faith. It ain't written in the sacred texts, it is not real. Pretending the opposite is tantamount to heresy.
I've always wondered what "The Climate Change Industry" is getting out of this too.
I mean, it's like nerds with glasses up against the pardon the pun well-oiled machinery of big oil and coal. To me it seems like an unfair fight.
What vital industries are we giving up?
Quote from: Siege on March 15, 2016, 07:54:44 AM
Article :
A few simple questions for climate fanatics
By Jack Hellner
President Obama, Bernie Sanders, and Hillary Clinton state that climate change is more dangerous to future generations than terrorism. They advocate destroying industries that have greatly improved our quality and length of life. I believe that the American people are entitled to some actual scientific facts instead of talking points. Here are some questions for the global warming bandwagon.
In the 1920s, scientists were warning that because of warming and the melting ice, coastal cities would soon disappear. Why were they wrong then, and why are the same warnings correct today? How did the Earth cool so much from 1945 to 1976 that the experts were warning about a disastrous ice age if rising CO2, rapidly increasing populations, industrialization, and fossil fuels cause warming?
Simple. The scientists of the 1920s were all land speculators, who hoped to buy cheap land as people fled the coasts. They were all replaced, between 1945 and 1970, by lizard people, who were hoping for climate change because hotter temps benefit lizards, who are cold-blooded.
Quote from: Zanza on March 15, 2016, 12:09:44 PM
What vital industries are we giving up?
Coal. Apparently it's the bees-knees for fighting climate change.
Quote from: Norgy on March 15, 2016, 12:02:46 PM
I've always wondered what "The Climate Change Industry" is getting out of this too.
Carbon offsets (http://www.nature.org/membership-giving/donation/gift-ideas/carbon-offsets.xml), they're the modern plenary indulgences. :pope:
Quote from: Norgy on March 15, 2016, 12:02:46 PM
I've always wondered what "The Climate Change Industry" is getting out of this too.
to be honest, lots of people are going to benefit from this. There is no reason to buy an electric car if gaz is cheap and harmless to the environment. No reason to shut down thermal power plants if coal is harmless but ample reason be use nuclear, hydro, solar or wind power even when they are more costly. Lots of people like Al Gore with their own consulting business to make tons of money on this.
It's essentially shifting resources from one place to another. Like shifting resources away from horse breeding to manufacturing cars. I'm pretty sure the horse breeders weren't too keen on seeing the automobile makers take their place. Some survived by diversifying, some others died. That was free market. Even though the governments favored the cars by building better roads, more roads and paved roads instead of relying on a trail in the desert. Even though the government subsidized the oil industry and not the farmers providing forage for animals. Even if when governments nationalized and/or subsidized the aircraft industry, it was free market.
But today, it is socialism. Because some idiots said so.
The writer doesn't understand margin of error.
So actual science is socialist bufoonery? I see.
If anything, the reticence of accepting science reminds me of Reagan and his stance on gay cancer. Or AIDS, as it was later known as.
No wonder I loathe him and Thatcher with passion.
Quote from: Norgy on March 15, 2016, 06:50:05 PM
So actual science is socialist bufoonery? I see.
If anything, the reticence of accepting science reminds me of Reagan and his stance on gay cancer. Or AIDS, as it was later known as.
No wonder I loathe him and Thatcher with passion.
A preference not to run public service announcements on TV telling gays to stop fucking so much without rubbers equals a dismissal of science? Or are you thinking of something else I'm unaware of?
More climate denial shit. :bleeding: :jaron:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 15, 2016, 06:59:31 PM
Quote from: Norgy on March 15, 2016, 06:50:05 PM
So actual science is socialist bufoonery? I see.
If anything, the reticence of accepting science reminds me of Reagan and his stance on gay cancer. Or AIDS, as it was later known as.
No wonder I loathe him and Thatcher with passion.
A preference not to run public service announcements on TV telling gays to stop fucking so much without rubbers equals a dismissal of science? Or are you thinking of something else I'm unaware of?
You know as well as me he refused to fund research about AIDS as it was just something homos died from.
Not his voters.
Quote from: Norgy on March 15, 2016, 07:45:48 PM
You know as well as me he refused to fund research about AIDS as it was just something homos died from.
Not his voters.
I know it much less well than you, since he did fund AIDS research.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_policy_of_the_Ronald_Reagan_administration#Response_to_AIDS
Quote from: Norgy on March 15, 2016, 07:45:48 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 15, 2016, 06:59:31 PM
Quote from: Norgy on March 15, 2016, 06:50:05 PM
So actual science is socialist bufoonery? I see.
If anything, the reticence of accepting science reminds me of Reagan and his stance on gay cancer. Or AIDS, as it was later known as.
No wonder I loathe him and Thatcher with passion.
A preference not to run public service announcements on TV telling gays to stop fucking so much without rubbers equals a dismissal of science? Or are you thinking of something else I'm unaware of?
You know as well as me he refused to fund research about AIDS as it was just something homos died from.
Not his voters.
And he was right.
Wash your mouth before you talk shit about the best president ever.
Quote from: Siege on March 15, 2016, 08:00:30 PM
Quote from: Norgy on March 15, 2016, 07:45:48 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 15, 2016, 06:59:31 PM
Quote from: Norgy on March 15, 2016, 06:50:05 PM
So actual science is socialist bufoonery? I see.
If anything, the reticence of accepting science reminds me of Reagan and his stance on gay cancer. Or AIDS, as it was later known as.
No wonder I loathe him and Thatcher with passion.
A preference not to run public service announcements on TV telling gays to stop fucking so much without rubbers equals a dismissal of science? Or are you thinking of something else I'm unaware of?
You know as well as me he refused to fund research about AIDS as it was just something homos died from.
Not his voters.
And he was right.
Wash your mouth before you talk shit about the best president ever.
I love me some Reagan, but better than Washington? Better than Lincoln? :yeahright:
Reagan is the worst thing that ever happened to this country. I mean it all seemed good at the time, but all of these mouthbreathers that can't get themselves off of his Alzheimeried treasonous cock are the reason this country isn't "Great" anymore.
I was surprised to learn while reading that wiki article I linked that Dutch got the top income tax rate down to 28%.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 15, 2016, 10:19:54 PM
I was surprised to learn while reading that wiki article I linked that Dutch got the top income tax rate down to 28%.
High taxes are not as popular in Europe as we sometimes like to think.
Quote from: sbr on March 15, 2016, 10:17:31 PM
Reagan is the worst thing that ever happened to this country. I mean it all seemed good at the time, but all of these mouthbreathers that can't get themselves off of his Alzheimeried treasonous cock are the reason this country isn't "Great" anymore.
Nixon thought he was a moron, and a bit crazy.
Quote from: Valmy on March 15, 2016, 10:23:20 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 15, 2016, 10:19:54 PM
I was surprised to learn while reading that wiki article I linked that Dutch got the top income tax rate down to 28%.
High taxes are not as popular in Europe as we sometimes like to think.
Dutch Reagan, not Dutch Netherlands.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on March 15, 2016, 11:01:46 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 15, 2016, 10:23:20 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 15, 2016, 10:19:54 PM
I was surprised to learn while reading that wiki article I linked that Dutch got the top income tax rate down to 28%.
High taxes are not as popular in Europe as we sometimes like to think.
Dutch Reagan, not Dutch Netherlands.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi2.kym-cdn.com%2Fentries%2Ficons%2Foriginal%2F000%2F012%2F132%2Fthatsthejoke.jpg&hash=47025a8b24f93c2521b5a13aa100e2d6db82e4af)
Quote from: Siege on March 15, 2016, 07:54:44 AM
How did the Earth cool so much from 1945 to 1976 that the experts were warning about a disastrous ice age if rising CO2, rapidly increasing populations, industrialization, and fossil fuels cause warming?
I had forgotten about that :D
Scientists kept warning about the constant cooling of the planet, so much so that most people thought of the future as an artic wasteland (I have several french BD of that time that show the apocaliptic future as being covered in snow, like 'Simon du Fleuve').
Thanks for reminding me of those times :hug:
As for actual climate...
Well, the shipyards we had here in my city that in 1500 AD threw the Caravels and Galleons directly into the Tagus river (that connects to the Atlantic Ocean 1km onward) are now solidly inland, and the palace at Jerónimos, where ships used to dock to unload spices, is a land feature today.
Also, we can now merely walk to visit the Tower of Belem, an artillery tower of 1500 that used to sit in the middle of the river and was only reacheable by boat at the time.
So, I guess I'll only worry about climate warming when the waters even remotely reach the levels at which they were 500 years ago. I'll use the old docks and ports as level meters.
Quote from: Martim Silva on March 16, 2016, 08:58:27 AM
Quote from: Siege on March 15, 2016, 07:54:44 AM
How did the Earth cool so much from 1945 to 1976 that the experts were warning about a disastrous ice age if rising CO2, rapidly increasing populations, industrialization, and fossil fuels cause warming?
I had forgotten about that :D
Scientists kept warning about the constant cooling of the planet, so much so that most people thought of the future as an artic wasteland (I have several french BD of that time that show the apocaliptic future as being covered in snow, like 'Simon du Fleuve').
Thanks for reminding me of those times :hug:
As for actual climate...
Well, the shipyards we had here in my city that in 1500 AD threw the Caravels and Galleons directly into the Tagus river (that connects to the Atlantic Ocean 1km onward) are now solidly inland, and the palace at Jerónimos, where ships used to dock to unload spices, is a land feature today.
Also, we can now merely walk to visit the Tower of Belem, an artillery tower of 1500 that used to sit in the middle of the river and was only reacheable by boat at the time.
So, I guess I'll only worry about climate warming when the waters even remotely reach the levels at which they were 500 years ago. I'll use the old docks and ports as level meters.
Absolutely.
We have entire cities where there used to be sea. I'm not going to worry until those people have drowned.
Rising water levels aren't the only problem with warming temperatures.
Quote from: Maladict on March 16, 2016, 09:31:55 AM
Quote from: Martim Silva on March 16, 2016, 08:58:27 AM
Quote from: Siege on March 15, 2016, 07:54:44 AM
How did the Earth cool so much from 1945 to 1976 that the experts were warning about a disastrous ice age if rising CO2, rapidly increasing populations, industrialization, and fossil fuels cause warming?
I had forgotten about that :D
Scientists kept warning about the constant cooling of the planet, so much so that most people thought of the future as an artic wasteland (I have several french BD of that time that show the apocaliptic future as being covered in snow, like 'Simon du Fleuve').
Thanks for reminding me of those times :hug:
As for actual climate...
Well, the shipyards we had here in my city that in 1500 AD threw the Caravels and Galleons directly into the Tagus river (that connects to the Atlantic Ocean 1km onward) are now solidly inland, and the palace at Jerónimos, where ships used to dock to unload spices, is a land feature today.
Also, we can now merely walk to visit the Tower of Belem, an artillery tower of 1500 that used to sit in the middle of the river and was only reacheable by boat at the time.
So, I guess I'll only worry about climate warming when the waters even remotely reach the levels at which they were 500 years ago. I'll use the old docks and ports as level meters.
Absolutely.
We have entire cities where there used to be sea. I'm not going to worry until those people have drowned.
Indeed, science won't be credible until it learns* to match anecdotes in predictive accuracy.
*which is to say, "declines"
https://dailymedia.info/scientists-earth-endangered-by-new-strain-of-fact-resistant-humans/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=socialnetwork
Quote
Scientists: Earth Endangered by New Strain of Fact-Resistant Humans
Scientists have discovered a powerful new strain of fact-resistant humans who are threatening the ability of Earth to sustain life, a sobering new study reports.
The research, conducted by the University of Minnesota, identifies a virulent strain of humans who are virtually immune to any form of verifiable knowledge, leaving scientists at a loss as to how to combat them.
"These humans appear to have all the faculties necessary to receive and process information," Davis Logsdon, one of the scientists who contributed to the study, said. "And yet, somehow, they have developed defenses that, for all intents and purposes, have rendered those faculties totally inactive."
More worryingly, Logsdon said, "As facts have multiplied, their defenses against those facts have only grown more powerful."
While scientists have no clear understanding of the mechanisms that prevent the fact-resistant humans from absorbing data, they theorize that the strain may have developed the ability to intercept and discard information en route from the auditory nerve to the brain. "The normal functions of human consciousness have been completely nullified," Logsdon said.
While reaffirming the gloomy assessments of the study, Logsdon held out hope that the threat of fact-resistant humans could be mitigated in the future. "Our research is very preliminary, but it's possible that they will become more receptive to facts once they are in an environment without food, water, or oxygen," he said.
SFC Failure scores an onion hit.
Good thing to see the onion expousing democrats as what they are: anti scientific morons with an anti human agenda.
Quote from: Siege on March 20, 2016, 07:30:59 PM
SFC Failure scores an onion hit.
Good thing to see the onion expousing democrats as what they are: anti scientific morons with an anti human agenda.
What about all the hundreds of millions of other non-Americans in on the conspiracy? Why are the majority of scientists anti-science morons? :hmm: It just seems to stupidly unlikely what you are selling.
I mean sure if it was just the Democrats alone espousing this view then sure. But how can you say that under the circumstances?
Actually why do you never ever respond to any of the questions I have? You whine and bitch we are 'fanatics' but you refuse. Are you: a climate coward?
Quote from: Valmy on March 20, 2016, 07:43:47 PM
What about all the hundreds of millions of other non-Americans in on the conspiracy? Why are the majority of scientists anti-science morons? :hmm:
Duh! We are trying to distract you from realizing that the moon landings were faked. It isn't clear why the Illuminati ordered the fake landings and the subsequent cover-up, but we don't question orders passed via the mind-control satellites and high-voltage power transmission lines.
Quote from: Siege on March 15, 2016, 07:54:44 AM
Article :
A few simple questions for climate fanatics
By Jack Hellner
President Obama, Bernie Sanders, and Hillary Clinton state that climate change is more dangerous to future generations than terrorism. They advocate destroying industries that have greatly improved our quality and length of life. I believe that the American people are entitled to some actual scientific facts instead of talking points. Here are some questions for the global warming bandwagon.
In the 1920s, scientists were warning that because of warming and the melting ice, coastal cities would soon disappear. Why were they wrong then, and why are the same warnings correct today? How did the Earth cool so much from 1945 to 1976 that the experts were warning about a disastrous ice age if rising CO2, rapidly increasing populations, industrialization, and fossil fuels cause warming?
According to UCAR (the Universal Corporation for Atmospheric Research) the temperature today is around 1.53 degrees warmer than 1880. Wouldn't that be within the margin of error, especially since the Little Ice Age ended around 1800?
According to scientific studies, CO2 was much higher during the ice age – 2,000-8,000 parts per million vs. 400 today. If CO2 causes warming, why wasn't the Earth warmer then than it is today?
Recently, the U.S. attorney general said the Justice Department is considering bringing legal action against people who will not go along on climate change caused by humans. Is it any wonder that scientists who are skeptics won't speak out when their livelihood is threatened?
Shouldn't the media do some simple research instead of just repeating the talking points that humans cause climate change?
We should all remember that science is almost never settled. There is continuous evolution in scientific thought. Why is there such a great effort to shut off debate on climate change?
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/03/a_few_simple_questions_for_climate_fanatics.html#ixzz42yYkrOcr
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
Aren't you embarrassed identifying with her?
http://time.com/4296191/sarah-palin-bill-nye-climate-hustle/?xid=time_socialflow_facebook
Quote from: Martim Silva on March 16, 2016, 08:58:27 AM
Scientists kept warning about the constant cooling of the planet, so much so that most people thought of the future as an artic wasteland (I have several french BD of that time that show the apocaliptic future as being covered in snow, like 'Simon du Fleuve').
that's a myth.
The myth (http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/01/the_myth_of_the_global_cooling_consensus.html)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 15, 2016, 07:51:41 PM
Quote from: Norgy on March 15, 2016, 07:45:48 PM
You know as well as me he refused to fund research about AIDS as it was just something homos died from.
Not his voters.
I know it much less well than you, since he did fund AIDS research.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_policy_of_the_Ronald_Reagan_administration#Response_to_AIDS
Wasn't that only after his buddy died?
Incidentally, I always meant to ask - what's a "climate fanatic"? I get a "climate change fanatic" but is a "climate fanatic" someone who fanatically believes we should have a climate?
I will immediately reach my climate.
Quote from: Martinus on April 17, 2016, 01:36:18 AM
Incidentally, I always meant to ask - what's a "climate fanatic"? I get a "climate change fanatic" but is a "climate fanatic" someone who fanatically believes we should have a climate?
Just anything strongly felt that is other. It's a way of chopping the standing out from beneath the opponent.
I will say one thing. I avoid using the terms "believe" and "denier" because those have religious connotations. So fanatic is a harder claim then.
Also, I will rejoice the day Florida sinks beneath the sea. :lol:
Quote from: Martinus on April 17, 2016, 01:32:58 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 15, 2016, 07:51:41 PM
Quote from: Norgy on March 15, 2016, 07:45:48 PM
You know as well as me he refused to fund research about AIDS as it was just something homos died from.
Not his voters.
I know it much less well than you, since he did fund AIDS research.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_policy_of_the_Ronald_Reagan_administration#Response_to_AIDS
Wasn't that only after his buddy died?
He started increasing funding in '83, Hudson died in '85.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 17, 2016, 02:41:36 AM
Also, I will rejoice the day Florida sinks beneath the sea. :lol:
And let hundreds of thousands of Québécois flock to Arizona instead? Or worst, have them stay here during winter, totally depressed? How hateful you are :(
Quote from: viper37 on April 18, 2016, 01:33:50 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 17, 2016, 02:41:36 AM
Also, I will rejoice the day Florida sinks beneath the sea. :lol:
And let hundreds of thousands of Québécois flock to Arizona instead? Or worst, have them stay here during winter, totally depressed? How hateful you are :(
Just so long as they don't find Palm Springs. There are enough Canadians there already.