(09-22-2014 03:21 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  Unhinged: RFK Jr. Calls For Jailing Climate Change Skeptics…

Leftists are always tyrants.

Robespierre, Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot...

(09-22-2014 02:19 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

(09-22-2014 02:14 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-22-2014 02:02 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I miss the days when republicans actually supported the sciences, and found creative ways to allow market forces to react to scientific evidence instead of just sticking their heads in the sand and ignoring the fact that this 'controversy' is about as real as the vaccine controversy was for the Left.

Our tax dollars are funding that ridiculous claim. It's been an issue for how many years, now? And STILL no evidence that it's true. Just some old beat down president and his beat down ilk telling us it's true. You wanna eat it up, be my guest, but don't get mad when a majority of the population laughs at it.

LSU, get a load of this use of taxpayer dollars...unreal


Taxpayer-Funded Global Warming Musical Bombs, Closes After Only 3 Weeks…

Quote:After a series of lackluster reviews, the traveling global warming musical that was financed by the U.S. taxpayers is ending its run early.

The Great Immensity, a musical described as “painfully long” and “awkward,” was made possible by a $697,177 grant from the National Science Foundation (NSF).

“The play, which featured songs and video exploring Americans’ relationships to the environment, opened in New York in April with a three-week run before going on a national tour that was supposed to attract 75,000 patrons,” FoxNews.com reported. “But it stalled after a single production in Kansas City, falling short of the lofty goals outlined in a grant proposal.”

The musical was intended to tour the country in an effort to convince Americans to act on climate change. It ended up attracting meager audiences of theatergoers who were likely already on board with the play’s politics, the Washington Free Beacon found after seeing the play on its opening night in New York City.

http://freebeacon.com/issues/the-show-wont-go-on/

How do they get this crap? Can I get the funds for something that DISPROVES global warming?

Quote:1)There hasn't been any global warming since 1997: If nothing changes in the next year, we're going to have kids who graduate from high school who will have never seen any "global warming" during their lifetimes. That's right; the temperature of the planet has essentially been flat for 17 years. This isn't a controversial assertion either. Even the former Director of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, Phil Jones, admits that it's true. Since the planet was cooling from 1940-1975 and the upswing in temperature afterward only lasted 22 years, a 17 year pause is a big deal. It also begs an obvious question: How can we be experiencing global warming if there's no actual "global warming?"

Per - NOAA


In addition to warming caused by greenhouse gases, the climate system also has natural variability, which is why one year’s temperature is different from the next. This natural variability also can result in the climate having short periods of cooling or no trend, even with strong overall warming due to increasing greenhouse gases. The table below, based on the analysis by Easterling and Wehner shows the probability that any ten year period will include negative trends of various magnitudes. Since 1975 there have been similar and longer periods of time where the globally averaged surface air temperature showed a slight cooling (1977-1985 and 1981-1989), yet the climate has warmed more in the past 33 years than any other time in our instrumental record. The results of Easterling and Wehner’s analysis are consistent with the model simulations used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and show that during the 21st century climate can and likely will experience decadal periods where the globally averaged surface air temperature show no trend or even cooling in the presence of a longer-term warming signal. Multiple decadal records are necessary in order to detect and attribute the effect of greenhouse gas increases in the climate system. These kinds of analyses have been performed extensively and reported on by the IPCC 2007 Assessments.


In short, they're intentionally measure a trough to a trough, while ignoring the overall rise in peaks between them and the actual trend.

Quote:2) There is no scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and caused by man: Questions are not decided by "consensus." In fact, many scientific theories that were once widely believed to be true were made irrelevant by new evidence. Just to name one of many, many examples, in the early seventies, scientists believed global cooling was occurring. However, once the planet started to warm up, they changed their minds. Yet, the primary "scientific" argument for global warming is that there is a "scientific consensus" that it's occurring. Setting aside the fact that's not a scientific argument, even if that ever was true (and it really wasn't), it's certainly not true anymore. Over 31,000 scientists have signed on to a petition saying humans aren't causing global warming. More than 1000 scientists signed on to another report saying there is no global warming at all. There are tens of thousands of well-educated, mainstream scientists who do not agree that global warming is occurring at all and people who share their opinion are taking a position grounded in science.

This list has been thoroughly debunked to such an extent I'm actually surprised even conservatives are still pushing it. For example "approved names on the list included fictional characters from the television show M*A*S*H,[20] the movie Star Wars,[19] Spice Girls group member Geri Halliwell, English naturalist Charles Darwin (d. 1882) and prank names such as "I. C. Ewe".[21] When questioned about the pop singer during a telephone interview with Joseph Hubert of the Associated Press, Robinson acknowledged that her endorsement and degree in microbiology was inauthentic, remarking "When we're getting thousands of signatures there's no way of filtering out a fake".[20] A cursory examination by Todd Shelly of the Hawaii Reporter revealed duplicate entries, single names lacking any initial, and even corporate names. "These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided."[22].

Quote:3) Arctic ice is up 50% since 2012: The loss of Arctic ice has been a big talking point for people who believe global warming is occurring. Some people have even predicted that all of the Arctic ice would melt by now because of global warming. Yet, Arctic ice is up 50% since 2012. How much Arctic ice really matters is an open question since the very limited evidence we have suggests that a few decades ago, there was less ice than there is today, but the same people who thought the drop in ice was noteworthy should at least agree that the increase is important as well.

Again, this is another example of them using outlying years to try and negate the overall trends which are obvious when you look at the data as a whole. 2012 had the lowest amount of arctic ice on record, far below any other year on record, and pointing to the fact that neither 2013 nor 2014 reached that low of ice levels while ignoring the steady, multidecade trend isn't how good science is conducted. Despite keeping records for 40 years now, the three lowest years of artic ice were 2012, 2011, and 2007. There is a clear trend if you'd be willing to look. Hell, this 50% gain you're talking about from 2012-2014 still resulted in the 6th lowest level of arctic ice on record (per - USA Today)

Quote:4) Climate models showing global warming have been wrong over and over: These future projections of what global warming will do to the planet have been based on climate models. Essentially, scientists make assumptions about how much of an impact different factors will have; they guess how much of a change there will be and then they project changes over time. Unfortunately, almost all of these models showing huge temperature gains have turned out to be wrong.

That human models of extremely complicated natural phenomena show short term variation from actual results doesn't somehow wholly negate the theory in it's entirety. I don't even understand how this can be seen as a compelling argument unless you don't understand the basics behind the scientific process and analyzing data.

If John Kerry says it....

(09-22-2014 03:49 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

Quote:1)There hasn't been any global warming since 1997: If nothing changes in the next year, we're going to have kids who graduate from high school who will have never seen any "global warming" during their lifetimes. That's right; the temperature of the planet has essentially been flat for 17 years. This isn't a controversial assertion either. Even the former Director of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, Phil Jones, admits that it's true. Since the planet was cooling from 1940-1975 and the upswing in temperature afterward only lasted 22 years, a 17 year pause is a big deal. It also begs an obvious question: How can we be experiencing global warming if there's no actual "global warming?"

Per - NOAA


In addition to warming caused by greenhouse gases, the climate system also has natural variability, which is why one year’s temperature is different from the next. This natural variability also can result in the climate having short periods of cooling or no trend, even with strong overall warming due to increasing greenhouse gases. The table below, based on the analysis by Easterling and Wehner shows the probability that any ten year period will include negative trends of various magnitudes. Since 1975 there have been similar and longer periods of time where the globally averaged surface air temperature showed a slight cooling (1977-1985 and 1981-1989), yet the climate has warmed more in the past 33 years than any other time in our instrumental record. The results of Easterling and Wehner’s analysis are consistent with the model simulations used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and show that during the 21st century climate can and likely will experience decadal periods where the globally averaged surface air temperature show no trend or even cooling in the presence of a longer-term warming signal. Multiple decadal records are necessary in order to detect and attribute the effect of greenhouse gas increases in the climate system. These kinds of analyses have been performed extensively and reported on by the IPCC 2007 Assessments.


In short, they're intentionally measure a trough to a trough, while ignoring the overall rise in peaks between them and the actual trend.

Quote:2) There is no scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and caused by man: Questions are not decided by "consensus." In fact, many scientific theories that were once widely believed to be true were made irrelevant by new evidence. Just to name one of many, many examples, in the early seventies, scientists believed global cooling was occurring. However, once the planet started to warm up, they changed their minds. Yet, the primary "scientific" argument for global warming is that there is a "scientific consensus" that it's occurring. Setting aside the fact that's not a scientific argument, even if that ever was true (and it really wasn't), it's certainly not true anymore. Over 31,000 scientists have signed on to a petition saying humans aren't causing global warming. More than 1000 scientists signed on to another report saying there is no global warming at all. There are tens of thousands of well-educated, mainstream scientists who do not agree that global warming is occurring at all and people who share their opinion are taking a position grounded in science.

This list has been thoroughly debunked to such an extent I'm actually surprised even conservatives are still pushing it. For example "approved names on the list included fictional characters from the television show M*A*S*H,[20] the movie Star Wars,[19] Spice Girls group member Geri Halliwell, English naturalist Charles Darwin (d. 1882) and prank names such as "I. C. Ewe".[21] When questioned about the pop singer during a telephone interview with Joseph Hubert of the Associated Press, Robinson acknowledged that her endorsement and degree in microbiology was inauthentic, remarking "When we're getting thousands of signatures there's no way of filtering out a fake".[20] A cursory examination by Todd Shelly of the Hawaii Reporter revealed duplicate entries, single names lacking any initial, and even corporate names. "These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided."[22].

Quote:3) Arctic ice is up 50% since 2012: The loss of Arctic ice has been a big talking point for people who believe global warming is occurring. Some people have even predicted that all of the Arctic ice would melt by now because of global warming. Yet, Arctic ice is up 50% since 2012. How much Arctic ice really matters is an open question since the very limited evidence we have suggests that a few decades ago, there was less ice than there is today, but the same people who thought the drop in ice was noteworthy should at least agree that the increase is important as well.

Again, this is another example of them using outlying years to try and negate the overall trends which are obvious when you look at the data as a whole. 2012 had the lowest amount of arctic ice on record, far below any other year on record, and pointing to the fact that neither 2013 nor 2014 reached that low of ice levels while ignoring the steady, multidecade trend isn't how good science is conducted. Despite keeping records for 40 years now, the three lowest years of artic ice were 2012, 2011, and 2007. There is a clear trend if you'd be willing to look. Hell, this 50% gain you're talking about from 2012-2014 still resulted in the 6th lowest level of arctic ice on record (per - USA Today)

Quote:4) Climate models showing global warming have been wrong over and over: These future projections of what global warming will do to the planet have been based on climate models. Essentially, scientists make assumptions about how much of an impact different factors will have; they guess how much of a change there will be and then they project changes over time. Unfortunately, almost all of these models showing huge temperature gains have turned out to be wrong.

That human models of extremely complicated natural phenomena show short term variation from actual results doesn't somehow wholly negate the theory in it's entirety. I don't even understand how this can be seen as a compelling argument unless you don't understand the basics behind the scientific process and analyzing data.

Nice try

(09-22-2014 01:44 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-22-2014 01:40 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

How do you even respond to such a moronic, idiotic comment? I tell you Lurch, I will take my chances on the non-existent threat of climate change, how about dealing with ISIS and Ebola now.

Quote: Secretary of State John Kerry said the threats posed by climate change should be addressed with as much “immediacy” as confronting the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), and the Ebola outbreak.

During a meeting with foreign ministers on Sunday, Kerry said global warming is creating “climate refugees.”

“And when you accrue all of this, while we are confronting ISIL and we are confronting terrorism and we are confronting Ebola and other things, those are immediate,” he added, using an alternate acronym for the terrorist group.

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environ...isil-ebola

A single bad heat-wave or drought caused by Climate Change would dwarf any of the realistic dangers faced to humanity by either ISIS or Ebola.

You mean those things that have been occurring since the beginning of time?

(09-22-2014 03:21 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  Unhinged: RFK Jr. Calls For Jailing Climate Change Skeptics…



Now, if you’ll excuse Robert, he has a private jet waiting for him.

Quote:Environmental activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. lamented that there were no current laws on the books to punish global warming skeptics. . “I wish there were a law you could punish them with. I don’t think there is a law that you can punish those politicians under,” Kennedy told Climate Depot in a one-on-one interview during the People’s Climate March. The interiew was conducted for the upcoming documentary Climate Hustle.

Kennedy Jr. accused skeptical politicians of “selling out the public trust.” “Those guys are doing the Koch Brothers bidding and are against all the evidence of the rational mind, saying global warming does not exit. They are contemptible human beings. I wish there were a law you could punish them with. I don’t think there is a law that you can punish those politicians under.”

Kennedy saved his most venomous comments for the Koch Brothers, accusing them of “treason” for “polluting our atmosphere.”

“I think it’s treason. Do I think the Koch Brothers are treasonous, yes I do,” Kennedy explained.

“They are enjoying making themselves billionaires by impoverishing the rest of us. Do I think they should be in jail, I think they should be enjoying three hots and a cot at the Hague with all the other war criminals,” Kennedy declared.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/09/21/r...me-for-it/

**** that dope.

Nothing but a bunch of no good commies walking elbow to elbow yesterday in the commie Climate marches.

just wait, one of the local leftists will start referencing Al Gores fraud of a movie next.

(09-22-2014 02:02 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I miss the days when republicans actually supported the sciences, and found creative ways to allow market forces to react to scientific evidence instead of just sticking their heads in the sand and ignoring the fact that this 'controversy' is about as real as the vaccine controversy was for the Left.

I miss the days when "science" wasn't used as a scheme to install public fear and rake in trillions of dollars on unproven theories.

I also miss the days when unproven theories weren't used as political wedge issues to insult and belittle the opposing side.

I also miss the days when an unprovable theory was still and unprovable theory. Now unprovable theories are used as scientific fact in politics.

(09-22-2014 03:25 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  Another last grasp, smell of desperation in the air, Hail Mary (wait can I say that any longer?!?) attempt to "fire up" the lunatic left fringe. The activist base that is inspired by this carnival barking stuff, that they fear will be more inclined to get stoned, splash on some smelly-schit petrulli oil, listen to their best of Joan Baez LP's, and just stay home come November.

The stink of desperation is a noxious cologne. Soon. Real soon.

That's exactly what this is - desperation. Obama & Co are trying to divert our attention from all his past and current failures and what better way to distract people who have an attention span of 12 seconds and an IQ to match?

Wait, are global temperatures rising but that's just normal or are the temperatures staying the same? I'm getting confused with the multiple explanations/dismissals.