Visit a Wal-Mart(s) around the 1st of the month, you'll find your answer.
Climate Change Nightmares Are Already Here
- Thread starter CatDaddy4daWin
- Start date
Visit a Wal-Mart(s) around the 1st of the month, you'll find your answer.
Oceans are the canaries:
http://www.businessinsider.com/ap-m...of-florida-keys-reef-2016-5?ref=yfp?r=UK&IR=T
http://www.businessinsider.com/ap-m...of-florida-keys-reef-2016-5?ref=yfp?r=UK&IR=T
this movement would have more legitimacy if those who are pushing it on the rest of us were not the single biggest polluters, consumers, fossil fuel burners in the history of mankind
how many miles has Hillary or Al Gore or Leonardo Decaprio travelled in lear jets over the last year, last 5 years, last 10? how many fleets of huge gas burning armored SUV's do they regularly travel around in? how many mansions do they own, how much KWH do they suck up each month on their utility bills?
rich pieces of ish doing more to cause that which they decry, yet they point their fingers down at little guys around the world to sacrifice and change and suffer. hypocrites, practice what you preach & then maybe more will take it seriously.
They do it because they know that there are plenty of ignorant hippy wannabes who will fallow and do whatever they say. Bring on a tidal wave, or droughts that stop the production of produce/meat...the planet could use a good cleansing.
I read your story, but unlike you I understand that this is just another example of people using a natural occurrence to try and prove MAN MADE global warming. Glaciers melting, oceans rising, etc, are a RESULT of warming and in NO WAY go to prove the warming is caused by humans.
IF the CO2 had caused the initial rise in temperature, THEN the temperature would have continued to rise at the same rate given the subsequent rise in CO2 levels.
In another 10 years the flat earthers on here are gonna look like the biggest bunch of GD idiots.
You do realize that you are putting your knowledge and wisdom above a huge consensus of scientists around the world. It is people like you that are saying there is a world wide conspiracy taking place with tens of thousands of scientists in a secret scheme of some sort that you just haven't figured out the exact purpose yet. You realize that right?
They already do to any remotely intelligent person willing to set aside politics and responsibly face the idea of stewardship.
There are many scientists that have access to the same information your "consensus" scientists have. They say the same things I say. I am not alone against your "consensus".
I would have to ignore many aspects of this ruse if I were to believe blindly as you do.
Doesn't it bother you people at all that you have representatives of your government calling for people to be jailed that disagree with AGW? Doesn't that scare you? People were jailed at one time for stating the Earth was not the center of the universe. How did that turn out?
This shows a total lack of the sense of responsibility that good stewardship is about.
Nope, not saying that at all. But this ignorant bs of impending doom is just moronic. Pretty sure it was predicted 20+ years ago that parts of the west and east coast would be completely submerged by now.
Hope these scientist and globe protectors keep making predictions though, it's very entertaining. I enjoy looking at pictures of parts of California submerged in 20 feet of ocean, and parts of the east coast as well.
They keep saying it long enough they will eventually get it right.
This is what you and your ilk always resort to. None of us has said that climate doesn't change. Of course it does. If it hadn't changed we wouldn't exist.
There is absolutely no proof that man has caused a measurable amount of warming, let alone the amount being attributed. Like it or not, CO2 is a TRACE gas in the atmosphere and is no more capable of being the sole regulator of Earths heat than bonsai trees being the main source of the Earths lumber.
In Al Gore's defense, he didn't use a qualifier along with "degrees". He may have been talking about Celsius. If he was, then none of us would know if he is correct or not.
Hey it's opiate for the masses guy. At least you changed it up this time.
Some are so dependent on the gov't and fans of the rich, that they will buy whatever they try to sell them. I'd believe all that shat too if I was getting a gov't check and a free cell phone.
Only one way to fix stupid....starve them.
Only one way to fix stupid....starve them.
I remember back in the late 70's when experts were warning about a cooling of the earth. The resulting potato famine was gonna result in another massive wave of Irish immigration....LOL
And if it wasn't an agenda of the political party you oppose, you would be more open to the realities of the dangers it presents.
It's irrefutable that pumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere will cause increased temperatures when all other conditions are equal. This is a basic concept of weather AND climate. The debate is at what rate does this increase develop, is anything mitigating these conditional increases (like natural patterns of cooling) and what other factors might contribute to natural warming.
That sounds like something lek would say. You have no proof of your claim other than what you consider to be a consensus, which isn't a consensus at all.
What you DO have proof of, is that data has been manipulated and the people charged with reporting the truth have been proven to have deliberately misrepresented their findings. Rather than accept these proven facts, you decide to align yourself with the doomsday squad.
They now know there was once a lot of water on mars...damn Martians driving around in their Denali's and such with no respect
With this rather juvenile statement I bid you farewell as there is no advantage to argue with a jester.
Ymmot drank away more IQ than you will ever get.
Why get petty? Apparently you refuse to admit that they scammed the data to prove their point. You are the one putting out juvenile statements.
planet is 5 billion years old. climate has run all ends of the spectrum during its existence, covered in lava to being a giant snowball. man has been active on the surface only a blink of an eye from a chronological perspective.
most humorous thing about the whole debate is that they had to re-brand themselves from "global warming" to "climate change" because, y'know, the globe stopped warming. think it has been by the very measure of climate activists something like 18 or 19 years now of no increase in earths temperature. oh but not to worry, they came up with a myriad of explanations....China's coal plants pumping out smoke blocked sun's heat, or the increase in temperature sucked up to the bottom of the ocean.
most humorous thing about the whole debate is that they had to re-brand themselves from "global warming" to "climate change" because, y'know, the globe stopped warming. think it has been by the very measure of climate activists something like 18 or 19 years now of no increase in earths temperature. oh but not to worry, they came up with a myriad of explanations....China's coal plants pumping out smoke blocked sun's heat, or the increase in temperature sucked up to the bottom of the ocean.
And there you go. Same tactic as lek and Z. You can't speak to my argument so you attack me. That doesn't seem logical for some reason.[laughing]
"Could be", and "might have" are not terms that are used in a scientific proof.
Actually that is not the whole story and to try and grab a snippet of a conversation and portray it as the defining point is juvenile. That's like saying scientists were predicting another ice age in the 70's---just not a fact based claim either. Have people made mistakes--yes but that one dumb mistake is not the end-all point to be made and does not shift all the evidence to one side. And you'll have to excuse me, I'll decide who I think is blowing biased garbage for myself thank you very much. Remember when Iraq had the capability to attack us with WMD laden drones in 45 minutes? Conservatives have been lied to for decades and all they have done to date is swallow.
Look there has been a mountain of evidence presented in this thread and it has made not one scintilla of difference in your narrow-minded view of the world, why should I waste any more of my time talking to such dense matter? It's a nice spring day and I'd rather enjoy it than read your waste. It's that simple, You do not hold my interest.
[laughing]
If you can't objectively look at the evidence, or lack thereof, and not come away with a questioning attitude, then I am not the dense one. Science requires proof, not consensus.
The article, which makes a valid point, lays bare one of the issues that skeptics of man made climate change point out. With climate change we are dealing with climate models, most of which have proven to be highly inaccurate. Based on the article, the current climate change theory would be the theory that is more likely than other theories based on current information and technology. It can change tomorrow as better information and technology arise. The inaccuracy of climate models indicate a rudimentary understanding of climate change. As such, it is not implausible that the current theory could change dramatically as we understand climate change better and have more information. That is my concern with sinking billions of dollars into technology that may have no real impact on climate.
Exactly, that is why it is ridiculous to say "settled science", unless you are attempting fool some of the people some of the time.
"Science requires proof, not consensus." Your words. It's clear you don't much about science.
No wonder you are a gullible believer. You obviously believe if enough people say something is true, it becomes true. You don't understand what I said or the context in which I said it.