Global Warming




Global Warming has come to be a hotly contested issue. Are there valid concerns that we should consider, or is Global Warming just the latest manufactured crisis to cash in on the public’s fears and generate new support for global governance, global carbon taxes and other oppressive policies?

On November 20, 2008 Ron Paul said in a New York Times / Freakonomics interview:

“I try to look at global warming the same way I look at all other serious issues: as objectively and open-minded as possible. There is clear evidence that the temperatures in some parts of the globe are rising, but temperatures are cooling in other parts. The average surface temperature had risen for several decades, but it fell back substantially in the past few years.

Clearly there is something afoot. The question is: Is the upward fluctuation in temperature man-made or part of a natural phenomenon. Geological records indicate that in the 12th century, Earth experienced a warming period during which Greenland was literally green and served as rich farmland for Nordic peoples. There was then a mini ice age, the polar ice caps grew, and the once-thriving population of Greenland was virtually wiped out.

It is clear that the earth experiences natural cycles in temperature. However, science shows that human activity probably does play a role in stimulating the current fluctuations.

The question is: how much? Rather than taking a “sky is falling” approach, I think there are common-sense steps we can take to cut emissions and preserve our environment. I am, after all, a conservative and seek to conserve not just American traditions and our Constitution, but our natural resources as well.

We should start by ending subsidies for oil companies. And we should never, ever go to war to protect our perceived oil interests. If oil were allowed to rise to its natural price, there would be tremendous market incentives to find alternate sources of energy. At the same time, I can’t support government “investment” in alternative sources either, for this is not investment at all.

Government cannot invest, it can only redistribute resources. Just look at the mess government created with ethanol. Congress decided that we needed more biofuels, and the best choice was ethanol from corn. So we subsidized corn farmers at the expense of others, and investment in other types of renewables was crowded out.

Now it turns out that corn ethanol is inefficient, and it actually takes more energy to produce the fuel than you get when you burn it. The most efficient ethanol may come from hemp, but hemp production is illegal and there has been little progress on hemp ethanol. And on top of that, corn is now going into our gas tanks instead of onto our tables or feeding our livestock or dairy cows; so food prices have been driven up. This is what happens when we allow government to make choices instead of the market; I hope we avoid those mistakes moving forward.”

After additional consideration and analysis and shortly before the release of the Climategate emails in late 2009, Ron Paul identified the artificial panic around Global Warming as an elaborate hoax:

“The greatest hoax I think that has been around for many, many years if not hundreds of years has been this hoax on […] global warming.” – Ron Paul on Fox Business, Nov. 4, 2009

“[The Copenhagen treaty on climate change] can’t help the economy. It has to hurt the economy and it can’t possibly help the environment because they’re totally off track on that. It might turn out to be one of the biggest hoaxes of all history, this whole global warming terrorism that they’ve been using, but we’ll have to just wait and see, but it cannot be helpful. It’s going to hurt everybody.” – Ron Paul on the Alex Jones Show, Nov. 5, 2009

For an environmental insider’s view on the “Green Agenda” and its background and motivations check out The Green Agenda. Also read Lew Rockwell’s Anti-Environmentalist Manifesto.



style="display:inline-block;width:728px;height:90px"
data-ad-client="ca-pub-3666212842414688"
data-ad-slot="9478233584">

Likes(0)Dislikes(1)

2,943 Comments:

  1. CONTINUED (2/2)

    By nixing subsidies to ALL, the market price of non-renewable hydrocarbons would rise to levels that make renewable sources MUCH more competitive- as would our reevaluation of our foreign policy in the middle east. We stop buying middle eastern oil, the price increases. Supply and demand bitches. Solar is coming down in price due to installation efficiency gains, decreasing production costs, higher efficiency PV cells, and economies of scale- and they aren't made in Saudi Arabia OR Iran. Wind is taking up residence in the CA deserts, as well as the wind belt states. Different forms of hydroelectricity have been powering cities for decades- as has nuclear. Technological advancements in all of the above are occurring and will have an effect, as will the efficiency gains in transportation and energy usage as a whole.

    Taxes will not solve anything. A carbon tax will get people to quit GHG's as well as taxes on cigarettes has gotten people to quit en-masse. The effect is small, if anything. What we really need to focus on is bringing an orderly end to the environmentally destructive industrial practices that currently prevail in our current system of economics and governance.

    Cronyism needs to be CRUSHED, as do the attacks on people who are trying to do the right thing. That includes environmentalists, true free-marketeers, gov't reform advocates, etc. Those who stubbornly cling to the status quo deserve every bit of contempt thrown at them.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • @robotron - "Taxes will not solve anything. A carbon tax will get people to quit GHG's as well as taxes on cigarettes has gotten people to quit en-masse. The effect is small, if anything. What we really need to focus on is bringing an orderly end to the environmentally destructive industrial practices that currently prevail in our current system of economics and governance.

      "Cronyism needs to be CRUSHED, as do the attacks on people who are trying to do the right thing. That includes environmentalists, true free-marketeers, gov't reform advocates, etc. Those who stubbornly cling to the status quo deserve every bit of contempt thrown at them."

      Okay! So now you're openly proposing the aggressive imposition of deadly force against peaceable human beings, with your objectives necessitating the deaths (either by starvation or by your direct application of overt thuggery) of innocent people in their millions.

      How nice to have that out where everybody can understand it, without equivocation or deceit. You're now an overt enemy of the public peace, no longer pretending to persuade, but explicit in your advocacy of assault and battery as a matter of political policy.

      Great!

      Now you've declared yourself to be in a state of war against human rights and the public peace, and we can simply shoot you down the moment you show yourself IRL.

      Thanks ever so much.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      • @Tucci78 "Cronyism" and "attacks on people" are not "peaceable human beings." They are a state of mind. I wouldn't expect you to get that since you've proven yourself an idiot.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • @Tucci78 And I should ask: are you threatening to shoot me? If you are, I believe that is a terrorist threat.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @robotron - "And I should ask: are you threatening to shoot me? If you are, I believe that is a terrorist threat.And I should ask: are you threatening to shoot me? If you are, I believe that is a terrorist threat."

          Heavens, no. I'm merely observing that through your utterance of what are clearly "fighting words," you've placed yourself in a condition wherein shooting you becomes a reasonable response.

          I'd never try to shoot you. I'm Sicilian. I'd just keep patting you on the back until small holes appeared between my fingers.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @Tucci78 Well well well. You're Sicilian. Good for you. I'm American. Freedom and respect are part of my DNA. Apparently these are foreign concepts to you.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @robotron - "I'm American. Freedom and respect are part of my DNA."

          Obviously genetic traits that have found no phenotypic expression in your person.

          To quote an earlier American - one Samuel Adams-

          "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom — go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!"

          Might have had you in mind, mightn't he?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @Tucci78 Love wealth better than liberty?? For fucks sake you idiot, I am trying to protect liberty from the assholes like you who are poisoning our environment. You're doing nothing but rushing to the defense of the corporations that are destroying what we all have a right to- clean air, clean water, and a healthy environment. I'm trying to protect it from assholes like you who don't give a damn about those who depend on their environment for their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I don't give a rats ass about your idea of wealth. My idea of wealth is being able to go swim in the ocean, breathe the air, and drink from my tap without being at risk of falling ill. Oh, and not have to contend with swarms of earthquakes as a result of waste-fluid injection wells because "they didn't know" there was a risk for such a thing to happen.

          The corporatists that are pillaging the "overburden" in Alberta, Canada, the open spaces overlying the Bakken and Marcellus Shale, and lobbying to open up ANWR among other sensitive places are the ones seeking wealth. I'm trying to stop them before we have another Macondo-like disaster that threatens to harm our environment for many years- that threatens to shut down fisheries, contaminate water sources, and rain down heavy metal ash on unsuspecting communities near coal plants.

          Go to hell. I don't believe in it personally, but I encourage you to keep digging until you find it.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @robotron - "Love wealth better than liberty??"

          I was more intent upon Mr. Adams' closing words:

          "Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!"

          ...which sure as hell apply to you leftie-luser shitwads, but I'm ever a scrupulous adherent to the principle that quotations should be as complete as to preserve the full original sense, particularly when they're drawn upon as commonly as is this one.

          I suspect that your personal jerk-off fantasies involve the standard "Liberal" fascist perverted visions of sadism and pillage and dominance of innocent victims, and far less the mother-earth-futtering bullshit you conceive might best facilitate the preservation of the tattered illusions that you're supposed to be any kind of benefactor to mankind or the citizen of a republic governed under the rule of law.

          Like any honest human being reading here might ever be duped into thinking that they could leave you unmonitored for five minutes in the presence of the family dog and come back to find poor Rover unraped.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  2. I'll make this simple.

    Myths and Facts:

    1) Global warming is going to kill us all.

    MYTH

    2) Global warming is a fraud perpetrated by shady NGO's and elites bent on enslaving the majority of the world's population

    OMG. MYTH

    3) Global warming is occurring, and is at least in part affected by greenhouse gasses released during industrial processes.

    FACT

    4) Scientists have engaged in a massive conspiracy to manipulate data to keep funding their careers

    MYTH

    5) Scientists have sometimes over-hyped and exaggerated their claims to the layman to prod them into action

    FACT

    6) Politicians have taken this issue to advance their own agendas.

    OMG. FACT. MANBEARPIG.

    Now I'll make this complicated. While it is tough, on the surface, to reconcile a laissez faire free market economic ideology with the desire for coordinated action to combat climate change AND environmental degradation, it isn't impossible. It is a balance that can be achieved through Democracy. Yes, America can become sustainable without killing jobs. In fact, the environmental benefits on long term health and well-being mean less hours worked away/stuck in traffic JUST to pay for higher-than-necessary healthcare costs.

    Without droning on about the benefits of clean air and clean water, it is pretty easy to comprehend the pitfalls of our reliance on sequestered hydrocarbons. Being that the combustion of non-renewable hydrocarbons IS the primary source of excess greenhouse gas emissions, the price put on the environmental degradation that occurs in the periphery (by way of enforcement of property rights and laws protecting clean air and water) would indirectly put a brake on GHG emissions.

    CONTINUED (1/2)

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  3. @Tucci78.

    Thanks for the links in your previous post, it is very straight forward. Anyone with a common sense and sufficient reasoning ability can see that there is an agenda playing out here:

    http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/

    In regards to IPCC's said consensus, the following link, which I knew was high but didn't expect it to be high as it currently says, "31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs". This sure does puts shame on the institutionalized pseudo-science establishment.

    http://www.petitionproject.org/

    And lest we not forget the book "The First Global Revolution" by Club of Rome,ca.1990~91, pg.75

    "In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the TREAT OF GLOBAL WARMING,...would fit the bill...The real enemy then is humanity itself." - So does this vague book with a grand title have any connection to what is happening today, 20 years after it was published?

    Club of Rome is a private think-tank organization, like Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Royal Institute of International Affairs, Trilateral Commission, UN, Bilderberg Group and others, who write policies to deprive individuals of their freedoms which the governments of the world, irrespective of their constituents approval, enthusiastically adopt and influence the media and culture to follow in their fascist/socialist footsteps. They are accountable to no one but themselves.

    Jon Huntsman, Mitt Romney, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are/were members of the CFR.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  4. President Ron Paul?

    http://johnston-sequoia.blogspot.com/2012/01/presi...

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  5. @Guest - "If it's not global warming, would you kindly explain how Minnesota had 55 degree weather a few days ago, and New Mexico had so much snow that you could make a snow man?"

    The putative mechanism of "global climate change" is the accumulation of insolation heat energy by way of the "greenhouse" effect induced by anthropogenically induced (man-made) increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.

    I'm not saying that this bullshit comes anywhere near characterizing what's actually happening in the real world, but rather that the "climatology consensus" clowns upon whom the politicians and the Watermelons rely to provide a pseudoscientific gloss of verisimilitude around their "man-made global climate change" scam rely upon this bullshit to foist their fraud upon the gullible and the ignorant.

    Global and regional climate conditions have varied in the past and will continue to do so, but the mechanism of those variations have in no significant way anything to do with anthropogenic increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide. Never did (no evidence), never could (no theoretical validity to the bullshit AGW conjecture).

    Yes, there's occasional weather weirdness. Historically, such stuff has happened before, and statistically it's pretty much certain that such episodes are going to happen again. Jumping up and down and squealing about stuff like "snowing in the desert" has nothing to do with any kind of science, however.

    You're online right now. Look up the Texas expression "blue norther" and then we'll talk about "snowing in the desert," okay?

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  6. Tucci78 is his own worst enemy and doesn't know it. Driving people away from Ron Paul with his ugliness. Good work, Ron Paul appreciates your taking votes away from his, and presumably your cause, as well.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • @Hempest - "Driving people away from Ron Paul with his ugliness."

      Nope. Stomping trolls like this "Hempest" clown does nothing whatsoever adverse to Dr. Paul's cause because such critters appear online to no purpose other than attacking the concepts of individual human rights and (as regards the "man-made global climate change" fraud) sound scientific method.

      There is precisely ZERO chance that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) fraudsters and their Watermelon true believers have any intention of supporting Dr. Paul in any way, and this particular dollop of pitiful prevarication makes that point quite perfectly.

      What's nice about this is that I'm just another poster on this "Fan Site," in no way officially affiliated with Dr. Paul's campaign, speaking (as I've continued to make clear) only my own observations and opinions.

      And these idiots fixate in their gibbering, impotent rage on ME.

      Whoopee.

      Millions of Americans have suffered through the past twenty years and more - especially since the thieving, raping transnational progressives (Tranzis) of the United Nations created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1989 - under a barrage of politically correct "Cargo Cult Science" contravening plain damned common sense and masquerading as unimpeachable scientific authority when in fact all it ever had been was an elaborate government-funded scam designed to impose upon the average citizen higher costs for literally everything needed to live.

      I simply make that clear, and these "Liberal" fascist scum go completely bugnuts confronting it.

      On their own masturbatory propaganda Web sites - and that includes Wikipedia - they can censor and block.

      Here they're just plain screwed.

      Ain't that nice?

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  7. @ Guest - "I'd just like to point out that technically it's 'global climate change'"

    Nope. The mechanism whereby "man-made global climate change" is supposed to be effected is by way of heat energy "trapped" in the Earth's atmosphere by anthropogenic (man-made) emissions of carbon dioxide as the result of burning petrochemical fuels.

    It's "global warming." The "climate change" noise was initiated by the AGW fraudsters when it became obvious that the warming they'd claimed to be caused by the purposeful combustion of petrochemical fuels pretty much ceased happening in about 1998 despite the fact that the emissions rates of aCO2 (and therefore atmospheric concentrations of man-made carbon dioxide) kept rising precipitously.

    You're online. Look up "Keeling curve."

    It's hard to complain that human emissions of CO2 are the cause of "global climate change" if there's no correlation between the alleged cause and the putative effect.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  8. @DonB in VA thanks for telling me the truth, now I can stop believing my lying eyes

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • @Hempest@donb - "...now I can stop believing my lying eyes..."

      Nah. Now you can unwedge your head.

      1) http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/17/told-ya-so-ipcc-to-retract-claim-on-himalayn-glacier-melt-pachauris-arrogance-claim-backfires/

      2) http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/20/ipcc-admits-error-on-himalayan-glacier-melt-fiasco/

      3) http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/29/uh-oh-pachuri-caught-out-in-ipcc-glacier-issue/

      4) http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/04/ipcc-brand-science-extrapolating-10-himalayan-glaciers-to-speak-for-54000-meanwhile-himalayagate-2-is-evolving-over-the-stern-report/

      Try reading something more accurate and honest than Joe Romm and the rest of the Watermelon warmistas' lying propaganda.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  9. You should literally learn how to spell before you post and if you all think man isn't impacting our environment adversely then I can only assume your denial is the result of your contempt towards nature and your own bodies.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • @Hempest - "...if you all think man isn't impacting our environment adversely..."

      My, but you ARE a friggin' idiot, aren't you?

      Stating the plain fact that the release of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (aCO2) into the atmosphere is NOT pollution - nor is it capable of ever causing statistically significant adverse "greenhouse" effect - isn't a claim that man-made gaseous, liquid, and particulate materials otherwise released into the environment cannot be considered adverse externalities which degrade "the commons" upon which other people depend for their well-being.

      What we're discussing here simply isn't pollution as such is properly identified, but rather the normal and perfectly tolerable products of complete combustion, CO2 and H2O.

      Now, if you want to consider anthropogenic factors which DO impose real environmental degradation upon parties without their consent, then we're moving into the realm of tort law, whereby the proper protection of individual private property rights is the objective, and where the abatement of noxious nuisances is appropriately handled.

      The notion of "regulating" pollution - by way of getting PERMISSION from government officers to dump certain levels of effluents into other people's air and water and soil - is an insanity.

      It makes the "right" to pollute a political favor meted out in violation of the individual right NOT to suffer that pollution.

      Can't have that and still remain a republic governed by the rule of law, can we?

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • @Tucci78 the friggin idiot who can't shut up. I'm sure you'd like to think that burning fossil fuels and adding excess co2 to the atmosphere is just fine, that way you don't have to change your lazy-assed lifestyle or stubborn mind. You will choose to remain asleep while spending your days blabbering nonsense to anyone foolish enough to listen

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @Hempest - "I'm sure you'd like to think that burning fossil fuels and adding excess co2 to the atmosphere is just fine...."

          Yep. And I'm sure that what you're trying to peddle is a pseudoscientific line of bullshit that serves the predatory political purposes of "Liberal" fascism, first as an excuse to "carbon-tax" your fellow Americans into poverty, second to destroy the economy upon which industrialized civilization depends for its survival (much less the growth we need to feed and house and clothe the millions of real human beings being added to the world's population every year).

          I have never yet encountered anyone pushing your Watermelon "We're All Gonna Die!" catatastrophist AGW hokum who wasn't a leftie-luser intent upon the government-as-god agenda of the National Socialist Democrat American Party (NSDAP).

          As I've observed here and elsewhere, there is simply no scientific validity to the contention that anthropogenic carbon dioxide (aCO2) has ever caused or COULD ever cause statistically significant "trapping" of insolation heat energy in the Earth's atmosphere.

          From the git-go (back in the 1970s), the alarmist idiots pushing what scum like you want to call "the consensus" have been practicing "Cargo Cult Science," devoid of verifiable and therefore valid EVIDENCE supporting their conjecture.

          In fact, as more valid evidence is elucidated, it keeps proving that everything these scheming fraudsters keep squawking about is simply not how the real universe works.

          Your problem, you friggin' fascist, is that your victims are awake.

          Run for your pitiful, worthless life.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @Hempest - "I'm sure you'd like to think that burning fossil fuels and adding excess co2 to the atmosphere is just fine...."

          Yep. And I'm sure that what you're trying to peddle is a pseudoscientific line of bullshit that serves the predatory political purposes of "Liberal" fascism, first as an excuse to "carbon-tax" your fellow Americans into poverty, second to destroy the economy upon which industrialized civilization depends for its survival (much less the growth we need to feed and house and clothe the millions of real human beings being added to the world's population every year).

          I have never yet encountered anyone pushing your Watermelon "We're All Gonna Die!" catatastrophist AGW hokum who wasn't a leftie-luser intent upon the government-as-god agenda of the National Socialist Democrat American Party (NSDAP).

          As I've observed here and elsewhere, there is simply no scientific validity to the contention that anthropogenic carbon dioxide (aCO2) has ever caused or COULD ever cause statistically significant "trapping" of insolation heat energy in the Earth's atmosphere.

          From the git-go (back in the 1970s), the alarmist idiots pushing what scum like you want to call "the consensus" have been practicing "Cargo Cult Science," devoid of verifiable and therefore valid EVIDENCE supporting their conjecture.

          In fact, as more valid evidence is elucidated, it keeps proving that everything these scheming fraudsters keep squawking about is simply not how the real universe works.

          Your problem, you friggin' fascist, is that your victims are awake.

          Run for your pitiful, worthless life.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @Tucci78 and his pitiful, worthless life. It's obvious you are projecting from mom's basement and are the true fascist. I know your mom's pussy was the last you had but you gotta get out of your shell. Good luck

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @Tucci78 the paranoid delusional moron. I never suggested a carbon tax. I suggest growing hemp and ending subsidies to fossil fuel industries. It's something we should do regardless of climate change. Wake up you retard and get away from your computer you fat piece of shit

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @Hempest - Restoring the hemp industry and putting paid to corporate welfare are both reasonable objectives, but even the remotest entertainment of the "man-made climate change" premise is presumptive proof of stupidity at best and predatory duplicity more probably.

          A penny portion of libertarian sense doesn't make up for your megaton overload of "Liberal" fascist viciousness.

          And therefore to hell with you.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  10. Thank you Tucci78 for explainting it and literaly having to spell it out for hempest to understand. He must be a Romeny voter.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    • @TColl90 - Sorry I went on at such length. This stuff is emphatically NOT rocket science, but the Earth's climate is a complex multivariant system demonstrating nonlinear responses to even the most accurately mensurable inputs, such that outcomes just don't tend all that reliably to be what the average yutz thinks they'll be.

      It's one of the reasons why I responded with a great big "WTF?" more than thirty years ago when a friend of mine out in Colorado informed me of this "greenhouse gas" idiocy about anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions.

      When Prof. Beckmann wrote about some Ph.D.'d bumblers claiming that we'd get the same sort of infrared "trapping" as had been theorized in studies of Venus' atmosphere, I boggled a bit and replied "Isn't somebody overestimating this potential effect by about three or four orders of magnitude?"

      Dr. Beckmann responded that it looked to him a bunch worse than that, but Dr. Beckmann was an engineering professor, and I'm just a country GP.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  11. @robotron@trolltracker1000 - Concluded -

    In the first group of Climategate communications opened to public scrutiny in 2009, it was confirmed that "the consensus" had, indeed, been co-ordinating their efforts to control the academic literature pertinent to the field of climate science in order to prevent the publication of legitimate research into these compensatory negative feedback factors.

    Indeed, it was confirmed that the C.R.U. correspondents exposed by Climategate had been conniving together not only to criminally defy prevailing Freedom of Information laws which required them to release their raw data and the other products of their work funded by government grants-in-aid (which are, therefore, public property) but also to DESTROY the requested raw data and those e-mail messages they had used to communicate with each other in this concerted program of deceit and theft of value by fraud.

    So what's the purpose of the stupid, lying sacks of shit infesting this message board?

    Obviously, they are "Liberal" fascists intensely hostile to the purposes and policies of Dr. Ron Paul in his campaign to restore the U.S. Constitution as the prescriptive force in federal government.

    Being themselves scheming liars - like "the consensus" of Climategate fraudsters so inescapably exposed by the information provided in the FOIA2009.zip and FOIA2011.zip digital archives - these sacks of shit have to "Occupy" online virtual venues where the factual realities of the non-existent "man-made global climate change" whoop-la are discussed by honest disputants, and displace such informed discourse with they own reeking shovelsful of bullshit.

    They keep failing, of course, but what the hell.

    If they weren't sitting in their mothers' basements jerking off like this, they'd probably be gathering around some Kindergarten, intent upon raping every five-year-old child they can get their hands upon.

    - 30 -

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  12. @robotron@trolltracker1000 - Continued -

    Anthony Watts and other honest meteorologists took note of this "drop out" rate and the potential for other artifactual degradation of instrumental data collection, and began to look into the possibility that - inadvertently or deliberately - the surface stations' equipment and sitings had become suspect.

    This, indeed, is what Watts' surfacestations.org project revealed.

    The continuing bullshit spewed by "robotron" and these other sacks of shit about how "CO2 is a greenhouse gas" is an example of the well-known "Liberal" fascist techique of lying by retailing incomplete information. In law, it's called "suppressio veri, suggestio falsi."

    The full truth about the minimal "greenhouse" effect of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (aCO2) in the Earth's atmosphere is that the "trapping" of heat energy radiated to our planet by the sun is in no statistically significant way increased by this aCO2 increment, and in no theoretically valid way could it ever be.

    Compensatory mechanisms - the various (multifactorial) negative feedbacks which operate upon the global climate to resist sudden changes in average temperature trends - are either deliberately left unconsidered by the small cadre of "climatology" charlatans posing as "the consensus," or the discussion of these negative feedback mechanisms is deliberately blocked.

    Interested honest readers - not these lying alarmist sacks of shit, of course - are directed to the ongoing analyses of the ERBE satellite observations (Lindzen & Choi, GRL, 2009 for a start) which have demonstrated that the heat energy "trapped" by aCO2 is simply radiated back into space as rapidly as any increase occurs.

    - Continued -

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  13. @robotron@trolltracker1000 - Continued -

    To the extent that the AGW fraudsters posing as "climatologists" have tried incompetently to spread a false gloss of pseudoscientific seeming over their obvious bullshit, they had to claim that man-made atmospheric carbon dioxide - the emission into the air of a product of complete combustion, resulting from burning petrochemical fuels to generate energy - is THE key cause of the gradual multidecadal increase in global average temperatures since 1700 (and thermometrically measured since 1850).

    It being obvious even to these academically credentialed incomptents masquerading as "scientists" that there had been vanishingly little purposeful combustion of petrochemicals (fossil and otherwise) until the technologies of the First Industrial Revolution had come into widespread use, and that there had been no statistically significant acceleration in the rate of global warming in the latter half of the 20th Century despite RAPID acceleration in the rate of increase of isotopically identifiable anthropogenic carbon dioxide (aCO2) in the atmosphere - look up "Keeling curve," you stupid sacks of shit - the alarmist "climatology" fraudsters had to get control of the three major instrumental surface temperature datasets in order to "adjust" them and prevent any honestly skeptical analysts from accessing the uncorrupted information to disprove the climate catastrophe bullshit.

    Moreover, these invidious scheming criminals posing as "scientists" had to degrade the ongoing harvest of surface temperature readings in order to falsely impose an increasing warming trend upon the readings going forward, because truthful assessments would - they knew - prove their "man-made global warming" bullshit to be spectacularly wrong. Thus their concerted campaign either to "drop" inconvenient surface station information from the global average temperature datasets or to physically eliminate certain monitoring stations (those which tended reliably to show stable or declining temperatures) altogether.

    - Continued -

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  14. @robotron@trolltracker1000 - The sustained multicentury trend that has been the very slow, very steady rebound from the Little Ice Age has been appreciated in legitimate (as opposed to alarmist "Cargo Cult") climate science for decades.

    Indeed, when legitimate consideration of the narrow field of climatology is undertaken, it's commonly concluded that the discipline, as such, began with meteorologist Hubert Lamb's study of the Medieval Warm climate optimum (circa AD 950 through 1250) and its gradual decline into the Little Ice Age that began slowly to abate - as mentioned - in about 1700. This period of global cold was determined to have finally ended in approximately 1850, which coincides with the beginning of instrumental (thermometric) assessments and broadening recordkeeping so as to gain broader and more reliable historical databases by which to measure changes in land and sea temperatures.

    Now, the squealing AGW alarmist sacks of shit frequenting this forum are anything but honest disputants interested in the reasoned consideration of these slow changes in the global climate but are instead "Liberal" fascist enemies of individual human rights who see in the recent (circa 30 year or so) fraudulent co-option of what had been a legitimate subdiscipline of meteorology an opportunity to gain political power and, in the process, thieve away literally trillions of dollars in spending power from the productive sector of industrialized society.

    Really, this gormless hoax has been - for these lying shitwads - the sort of golden opportunity that such pillaging scum have traditionally fallen upon like rapists upon an unguarded Kindergarten.

    Same motives and techniques, too, when you think about it.

    - Continued -

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  15. @trolltracker1000
    Troll-lololo! :)
    Its funny how he switches from saying there is no global warming at all by quoting Anthony Watts surfacestations.org effort, to saying we have been witnessing a warming trend since 1700. Which is it!? CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It is measurable physics . People have been releasing it into the atmosphere increasingly since the industrial revolution began. To say there's no effect whatsoever is not intellectualy honest- nor is calling his detractors "sacks of shit."

    Tucci78 needs the touch of a woman (or ladyboy as someone suggested earlier).

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  16. If it isn't happening then why are glaciers receding and the ice caps melting at a rate we can witness first hand?

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

    • @Hempest - "If it isn't happening then why are glaciers receding and the ice caps melting at a rate we can witness first hand?"

      As has been discussed here repeatedly, it's not that global warming "isn't happening" - because the current very slow, very steady planetary warming trend has been in train since about the year 1700 - but rather that there's no EVIDENCE that the anthropogenic release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere (as the result of the purposeful combustion of hydrocarbon fuels) has anything whatsoever to do with it.

      In other words:

      1) the planet Earth is definitely experiencing an historically recent warming trend,

      2) the burning of petrochemical fuels has nothing to do with it,

      3) the foreseeable results of that warming trend will not - even if it continues for another century and more - result in global average temperatures equivalent to those which occurred during the Roman Warm (much less the Medieval Warm) climate optima, both of which were periods of extraordinary agricultural productivity and general prosperity for the whole human race, and

      4) current understanding of the variability of the solar fusion cycle and meteorological phenomena like the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO) and the Atlantic multi-decadal oscillation (AMDO) demonstrate that other - entirely natural - factors so profoundly affect the Earth's overall climate that whatever greenhouse gas effects might possibly result from anthropogenic increases in atmospheric CO2 cannot even be reliably estimated.

      The anthropogenic CO2 effect simply "gets lost in the noise" as statistically insignificant.

      In other words, there's no demonstrable NEED for mankind to reduce our "carbon footprint" because our CO2 release is in no possible way a causative factor in the warming trend about which our Watermelon sacks of shit are squawking and squealing.

      --

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      • @Tucci78@Hempest At the end of the day, we need government regulations to protect our planet and people. No, I'm not saying more taxes or granting permissions to some and not others, but I'm all for stricter regulations. Replacing trees, protecting forests, more stringent emissions regulations, etc. Since the industrial revolution, a lot of damage is being done and people who refuse to realize it because they don't want to be associated with the liberal hippies need to wake up. Unused energy is released into the atmosphere in the form of heat, mountaintops are being destroyed for coal, wars are started for oil, cancer and other diseases are out of control... we should want our government to set higher standards, nothing negative can come from it.

        I agree, there shouldn't be any free passes. No one should get permission to dump their waste anywhere. No loopholes, and definitely no taxes. If it's that damaging to the environment, it shouldn't be done. But, please... stop making it about taxes and government control.

        FYI: Ron Paul is an idiot and a bigot.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

        • @Ace81@Hempest - "At the end of the day, we need government regulations to protect our planet and people. No, I'm not saying more taxes or granting permissions to some and not others, but I'm all for stricter regulations. Replacing trees, protecting forests, more stringent emissions regulations, etc."

          No, we need government to protect our individual human rights to life, to liberty and to property.

          To the extent that the planet is PRIVATE PROPERTY - in one way or another - the only legitimate role of any government is to protect those private property rights within its jurisdiction.

          Expecting more is both unworkable and insane.

          Your desire for "stricter regulations" - all of which boil down to government VIOLATIONS of individual property rights - is short-sighted, wrong-headed, and stupidly unrealistic. You want the protection of both identifiable physical elements of the planet (land and the resources thereof) AND the commons (air, rivers, oceans, etc.) effectively owned and controlled by politicians and bureaucrats.

          First, these "Malevolent Jobholder" (you're online; look it up) have no real incentive whatsoever to preserve these goods. They're only transiently in charge, without real personal "ownership" vested in them as individuals.

          Second, these government thugs do EVERYTHING according to political priorities. Can't repeat that enough, and you obviously don't get it yet. Politics is a friggin' HORRIBLE way to do anything.

          It's the way we manage the police power - essentially killing people and breaking things - but even then the politicians don't do those jobs very well.

          Putting politicians in charge by way of "stricter regulations" has never worked. The environmental damages you've attributed to "the industrial revolution," for example, have all been done by government thugs issuing "regulations" that deny private citizens the right under common law to sue particular polluters for damages and abatement of public nuisances.

          Politicians have always done the dirty work for the people able to pay them the desired graft. Seldom or never do they protect individual human rights.

          Oh, yeah. "FYI," you're a friggin' ignoramus and a sucker for the "Liberal" fascists.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

        • @Tucci78@Hempest Lmao, you're quite the character. No government regulations, how is that better? What, put it in the hands of the states again, the states controlled by the same politicians you speak of. Oh, btw, protecting our planet, is protecting the people, at the end of the day they are one and the same... and that's what our government is suppose to do. If our planet becomes uninhabitable, because there are no regulations, what do you think will happen to mankind? Government is corrupt, so, work to fix that, don't eliminate the regulations, makes no sense. These corporations that are doing the majority of the polluting, can not be trusted to "do the right thing." We need government overhaul, not government elimination, we need more protections and privacy on the individual level and less intrusion, not on the corporate level. You seem to hate the government, I agree, I have plenty of issues with the government, as it's currently operating, but I am not so delusional as to believe that we could eliminate government and still save the environment, build a better education system, and keep our financial system from collapsing.

          You and Ron Paul, see a problem and want to eliminate the whole subject of the problem without regard for the consequence, rather than try to fix the situation. Destroying to rebuild is a beautiful fantasy, but the reality is that would truly lead to anarchy and a world controlled by money even more so than it is now. Remember your history, ungoverned wealth and power never allowed for equal opportunity or free exercise of religion, speech, assembly, freedom of the press, or freedom of petition. Careful what you ask for, you just might get it.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

        • @Ace81@Tucci78@Hempest

          Well said Tucci, as always. Thanks for the wealth of information you have provided to this forum. It's people like you that the AGW establishment is trying to attack because their "wacky" science can't stand on its own merits nor allowed to be subjected to any rational or scientific scrutiny. I guess any form of indoctrination requires it so. I looked into some of your comments and they seem right on.

          We have tons of regulations now and its not working. More regulations will work even less efficiently. If we just enforce private property rights, much of these environmental disasters could be corrected. This means replacing all the unconstitutional, pro-corporate justices to seriously bankrupt any offending company for good and for the good of the individual and their property, unlike a slap on the wrist solutions our government currently provides, allowing BP, Dupont, Monsanto, 3M, Exxon and other environmentally unfriendly companies to still operate and continue to pollute much deadlier toxins than CO2. FDA, USDA, EPA and other most other agencies are not useful as they are all pro-corporations and anti-individuals. If any type of regulation is required, it should be to enhance the powers of the individual. This power was taken away from the people by our trusted government. We need to reclaim this power, and Paul is the only one addressing this. I think this is one of the the most crucial message that Paul is addressing which can essentially "solve" so many problems.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @SoCold@Ace81@Hempest - "We have tons of regulations now and its not working. More regulations will work even less efficiently. If we just enforce private property rights, much of these environmental disasters could be corrected."

          In U.S. history, all federal and state regulations have tended to be sought by the established actors in the pertinent market segment.

          This is a truism readily accepted in Austrian School economics as the result of much investigation over the decades, and it makes sense on first examination. Such regulations not only provide limitations (which give the established corporations a decided edge over upstarts trying to challenge them for market share) but also define "safe harbor" parameters within which these corporations' officers know that they can operate to violate individual human rights without significant prospect of adverse consequences.

          They can get sued and simply respond "We were following government regulations. Can't hold us responsible if we were following regulations, can you? Blame the government."

          Happens in the financial sector, too, you'll notice.

          The more Byzantine the regulations, the more flagrant will always be the corporate actors' violations of their victims' rights. Clarity and simplicity in rules (see Richard Epstein's writings on such matters) are their bitter enemies.

          Someone who pollutes the commons upon which many people depend for their material well-being should never expect to be given a "hold harmless" escape route by way of compliance with government regulations gotten by way of bribes paid to thugs on the public payroll.

          No matter how these Watermelon idiots conceive "stricter regulations" to be some kind of panacea, those of us who've made the effort to study the situation - and who value individual human rights above all else - know better, and are prepared to say so.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @Tucci78 It's silly that you want evidence (since you're whole argument is that it hasn't been proven), but the main way to get that evidence would be to decrease the greenhouse gas emissions, slow down deforestation and see if it slows down the climate change, which while our history has gone through a lot of eras of climate change, none have been this dramatic. The evidence you seek can only be provided by decreasing the greenhouse effect.

          Remember, everything you tell people to search, to defend your argument, can be disputed by another simple search. We need to reduce greenhouse emissions and see if it helps, the laws aren't written in stone, they can always be changed down the road. Yes, we have to be careful about how we pass the laws, but that doesn't take away from the need for these corporations to regulated.

          I'm done. You obviously don't want to allow them the opportunity to slow down the pollution and destruction of earth, even though the laws whether or not they slow down global warming, are guaranteed to help the earth.

          climate(dot)nasa(dot)gov/evidencesciencedaily(dot)com/releases/2007/02/070202085036(dot)htm

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @Ace81 - "It's silly that you want evidence (since you're whole argument is that it hasn't been proven), but the main way to get that evidence would be to decrease the greenhouse gas emissions...."

          Nope. The way to get evidence that the anthropogenic emission of carbon dioxide (aCO2) into the atmosphere has caused - or could ever cause - statistically significant global climate change is to demonstrate a positive correlation between these emissions (which are mensurable by way of straightforward atmospheric analyses) and warming by way of an alleged "greenhouse" effect.

          No such correlation has been accomplished. Indeed, key in the abjectly idiotic premise that masquerades as "science" in the whole preposterous AGW contention is that the aCO2-induced greenhouse gas effect is a precipitant of a cascading sequence of positive feedback mechanisms which impose "runaway" warming consequences that destabilize the global climate system in a manner so adverse as to pose a clear and present danger to human survival.

          Your blankly idiotic attempt at an excuse for an argument falls under the "precautionary principle" heading, and is as devoid of sound scientific method as a child's faith in Santa Claus.

          Or a socialist's faith in government.

          If you're so friggin' confident that the sources I've recommended to readers here "...can be disputed by another simple search," then by all means DO YOUR GODDAM SEARCHES and put up your links in this forum.

          We'll rip them to bloody shreds, you'll again be proven wrong, and we'll get on with disposing of the hideous fraud you're pushing.

          To begin with, let's provide direction to *The Skeptics' Handbook* and ancillary guides (which though produced pre-Climategate, still hold up remarkably well as introductions to the AGW fraud and its failures):

          http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @Ace81 - "climate(dot)nasa(dot)gov/evidencesciencedaily(dot)com/releases/2007/02/070202085036(dot)htm"

          Putzie, why the hell don't you provide a FUNCTIONAL link (maybe one referring to a Web site created sometime a bit more recently than what appears to have been created in 2007)?

          The Hansen infestation at NASA notwithstanding, it seems that the Agency has been kicking the guts out of the AGW fraud more recently.

          See http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/07/27/new-nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-in-global-warming-alarmism/

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @Tucci78 lmao, you are clueless. The climate changes are occurring at rates that are 2/3rds faster than previous climate changes. You can't explain why that is, but you want to dispute the validity of global warming, you're insane. A precautionary principle is the perfect way to plan for our future, we don't wait until the earth is so polluted it can't sustain human life to address the problems (that do exist) whether you choose to believe it or not. It's not myth that the individual elements of greenhouse gas emissions are hazardous to the environment (imagine the combined effects). They emit radiation. <--- fact by the way. Even the water vapors cause significant damage. Everything has been proven to be bad for the environment on a smaller scale, but you want to know exactly how bad it's affecting the environment on a larger scale, well guess what needs to be done to prove it? I'm not sure why anyone would vote against essentially saving our planet by minimizing pollution and holding corporations to higher standards, it's absurd. FYI, my phone was giving me an issue when I tried posting the links. You seem so upset about this, you must work for a company that loves burning them fossil fuels. Most politicians who don't "believe" in global warming have their pacs and lobbyists funded by the likes of the same people who would lose a lot of money if the stricter regulations passed. Stop acting like the ones who are for stricter regulations are the ones that are brainwashed, cause honey, you're no different. Goodnight.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @Tucci78 Oh, btw... your beloved Ron Paul is financed by natural resources and Davis Lynch, they are his top two pac contributors. Seems like he has a biased reason for his stance, what's yours? According to you it's the global warming advocates getting their pockets lined, hate to burst your bubble (actually I don't), but you should do a bit more research about your beloved Ron Paul before calling the kettle black.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @Ace81 - "...you should do a bit more research about your beloved Ron Paul before calling the kettle black/"

          Source your bullshit, asswipe.

          Whatever might be Dr. Paul's motives for refusing to credit the premises of the preposterous "man-made global climate change" contention, mine own reasons are precisely as I've already stated here.

          There is no objectively verified (or verifiable) basis in objective reality for the assertions made by the methodologically unsound "Cargo Cult" pseudoscientists advancing these assertions, and therefore no reason for honest men to accept their contentions as factually supported.

          That's all I require.

          If Dr. Paul's position is congruent with my own, fine. Yet one more reason to support his campaign. If it were not, that'd be regrettable, but it simply wouldn't have any impact upon my appreciation of either the AGW fraud itself or your own personal insane and/or criminal viciousness.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @Tucci78 It's public information, look it up. There is nothing cargo cult about it, the individual elements of greenhouse gas are toxic to the environment, in order to do research on a larger scale they would either need to intentionally release what they consider a poison into the environment, or intentionally decrease it and see what the affects are. It's not up for debate whether the toxins released are bad for people and the environment, they just need to know how bad. You're the fraud, you have no logical reason other than being against government for your delusional stance. You don't even know what or who you are supporting. as educated as you would like to appear, the reality is that you're the fraud, fighting for what, for corporations to be able to continue polluting. Get a clue, dimwit.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @Ace81 - "It's public information, look it up."

          Fine, then you should have absolutely no trouble CITING YOUR SOURCES of supporting "public information." Thus far you haven't done so.

          Look, schmuck, I wouldn't let a student or resident physician under instruction get away with anything even remotely resembling the sort of stinking shit you've been peddling in this forum. Whatever in hell gives you to conceive that anybody is ever going to let you make your preposterous and utterly senseless whip-'em-out-of-your-ass assertions about the global climate without support that is precisely cited for due evaluation?

          You can spout whatever frothing insanity about "the individual elements of greenhouse gas [which] are toxic to the environment" you please, but there is nothing in your contemptible noise that evinces on your part even a superficial consideration of the known mechanisms of negative feedback which tend reliably to blunt and even obviate the miniscule "greenhouse gas" effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (aCO2) in both objective reality and in the course of valid theoretical analysis of observed phenomena in the global climate.

          There is ample - even overwhelmingly convincing - "logical reason" for my skeptical regard of the preposterous idiocy you keep pointlessly pressing on the matter of AGW, and even more objectively valid reason for "being against government" - which is to say critically disdainful of the motives, methods and overall intelligence of POLITICIANS - in matters properly addressed by methodologically sound (and honest) scientific investigation.

          Of such sound methodology and intellectual honesty, of course, YOU have proven yourself utterly bereft, and therefore to hell with you.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @Ace81 - "The climate changes are occurring at rates that are 2/3rds faster than previous climate changes. You can't explain why that is, but you want to dispute the validity of global warming, you're insane. A precautionary principle is the perfect way to plan for our future..."

          Support your contention about the rate at which "climate changes" are occurring. No objectively verified evidence of such phenomena have yet been presented, and in fact ongoing investigations yield nothing but indications that such changes as have been assessed are trending away from "greenhouse gas" increases in global average atmospheric temperatures and more toward a reduction in heat energy "trapped" in the Earth's atmosphere.

          Reductions in the degree of insolation (particularly in the form of solar wind) have been resulting in an increase in the degree to which the planet's atmosphere is influenced by cosmic background radiation, which has in turn been causing greater levels of cloud formation and persistence. This increases the planet's albedo and therefore it's tendency to reflect as well as to radiate heat energy back out into space, resulting in global cooling which has nothing to do with human action.

          The sun's activity levels have so much more to do with these "climate changes" you're idiotically squawking about that the insignificant alleged "greenhouse" effect of aCO2 simply can't be calculated.

          It's "lost in the noise."

          Oh, yeah. Your "phone was giving [you] an issue when [you] tried posting the links" to NASA source materials from 2007?

          Uh-huh. And the dog ate your homework, too, didn't it?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @Tucci78 Such big words for such a medicocre mind.

          http://timeforchange.org/CO2-cause-of-global-warming

          http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgave.php?cycle=2012&cmte=C00234641

          Did you think I was bluffing? I just prefer for people to do their own research, come to their own conclusion. You should've researched your pick for president better. Goodnight. I must admit, I do love pissing you off, you take this so personal. lmao Btw, you talk a lot of gibberish that you don't cite, but you want everyone around you to cite their claims. You're so silly. Get over yourself.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @Ace81 - Oh, goodie. A partial listing of Dr. Paul's political contributors (is that supposed to impress somebody?) and a bullshit Watermelon propaganda site without even the pretense of a bibliography to support the assertions offered.

          Jeez, you are REALLY absolutely clueless, aren't you?

          Look, you stupid doofus, in matters of scientific disputation (which is what we're discussing anent the AGW contention, and where you're bringing a rubber knife into a gunfight), competent participants provide references to information based upon verifiable observations and valid theoretical conceptualization lucidly elaborated.

          Your superficial sole source (last updated in 2007, meaning that there's not even the least hint of consideration of the CLOUD experiments recently completed at CERN, much less the analyses of the ERBE satellite observations which began to be published in 2009) contains neither, and is therefore hilariously worthless.

          And you - an utterly hapless friggin' idiot - think that you've done "research" of any kind? Oh, how wonderful.

          As for my own citations, page back in this thread. You'll find 'em, you pitiful sack of shit.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @Tucci78 Do you realize how ignorant you come off. Really, why do I get under your skin? As far as you're concerned I'm nothing more than words on your screen. You are not absolute in your theories. yes they are theories, and even Bill Gates believes in depopulation due to the high concentration of CO2. The sites you've referenced are biased, much of science is also biased by the way, since a lot of the time, they have the results they are seeking predetermined and the research is often funded by someone with something to gain or lose. Stop being a hypocrite. At the end of the day, it's about pollution. So please, give a hoot, don't pollute, more importantly, don't vote to reduce oversight on pollution. 😉

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @Ace81 - "Do you realize how ignorant you come off. Really, why do I get under your skin?"

          To you? Ah, what a complement. The lying, uneducated, contemptible sacl of shit "Ace81" frantically wants to portray me as "ignorant."

          It's like rapping the patellar tendon to get a kneejerk, and involves precisely the same amount of cerebral activity on the part of this "Ace81" asshole.

          As for "Ace81" getting "under [anybody's] skin," where else does one find a cancer like this guy?

          It is not necessary that one be "absolute in [one's] theories" in order to formulate and evaluate them. Indeed, this "Ace81" sack of shit obviously doesn't even know what's the difference between conjecture, hypothesis, theory and law.

          See http://library.crossfit.com/free/pdf/64_07_Conjecture_to_Law.pdf for a good layman's-level explanation thereof, authored by physicist Jeff Glassman.

          Per Dr. Glassman, "A theory is a hypothesis with at least one nontrivial validating datum." ("A hypothesis is a model based on all data in its specified domain, with no counterexample,")

          Theories are therefore intellectual concepts which have been based upon ALL pertinent observations, and validated by objectively confirmed information.

          The uneducated dismissal of "theories" is pretty obviously the mark of a goddam idiot, ergo the idiocy of "Ace81" is presumptively proven.

          It is also demonstrable (Dr. Glassman in the cited article does so) that the AGW contention is a "crippled conjecture," not even rising to the level of hypothesis.

          And "Ace81" wants to contend - equally without support - that the sources I've cited "are biased."

          They're certainly biased in favor of factual reality and sound scientific method, even as this pitiful dork's ridiculous fumbles at what he laughably thinks to be ratification of his beloved AGW fraud are demonstrably not.

          Oh, yeah. Citing "Bill Gates" in the logical fallacy of appeal to irrelevant authority.

          How's about I cite physicist Freeman Dyson - a RELEVANT authority as a recognized master of scientific method - in response?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @Tucci78 Definition of THEORY1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another2: abstract thought : speculation3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art 4a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory 5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena 6a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigationb : an unproved assumption : conjecturec : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject

          Wow, you really are pathetic. Your sources go on rants about how they're doing everything wrong because they don't want to prove either way whether global warming is or isn't real because they are essentially making a living off doing the research. Kind of a there's no money in the cure, so we just keep feeding them medicine thing. Beautiful, cut funding. Lay them all off. One of your sites is pretty funny. It sounds more like, "well we don't believe in global warming and we want funding too, so we can prove it's a crock" which is also a bit hypocritical, like much of what you say. If you create a chemical imbalance in anything, there will be detrimental affects. CO2 remains in the atmosphere for 100's of years, and new CO2 is being released into the atmosphere every second, you don't think that will eventually catch up to us in some way, shape or form?

          http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ of course it's a government site, so you wouldn't care to believe that anyway.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @Ace81 - Oh, goodie. This idiot can cut-and-paste from a dictionary. Not that he makes any sensible use of what he copies, but let's not get our expectations too high.

          Let's see, the "Ace81" mound of manure claims that "one of [my] sites...sounds more like, 'well we don't believe in global warming and we want funding too, so we can prove it's a crock'" without citing the one to which this dork is supposed to be referring, or quoting what had actually been posted on that alleged site, and so there's no way that we can even consider this babbling idiot's contention any sort of contention at all.

          Has anybody else reading here ever seen anyone absolutely RAMMING his head up his own ass the way "Ace81" keeps doing?

          Oh, well. Let's quote this "Ace81" idiot's (allegedly) own noise:

          "If you create a chemical imbalance in anything, there will be detrimental affects. CO2 remains in the atmosphere for 100's of years, and new CO2 is being released into the atmosphere every second, you don't think that will eventually catch up to us in some way, shape or form?"

          First, the "100's of years" assertion is unsupported. It's also insane. One would have to tag a quantity of CO2 molecules somehow (Carbon-14? Carbon-13?), get a uniform assessment of the total atmospheric content of such identifiable carbon dioxide molecules, and then conduct measurements over "100's of years" in order to provide a factual underpinning in support of that preposterous contention.

          Second, if there is "a chemical imbalance" created in any complex system (like the Earth's atmosphere), there has to be a measured proof that the effects of such an "imbalance" actually IS an "imbalance" - in other words that it has an adverse effect of any real significance - as well as proof that compensatory mechanisms induced by other chemical and physical factors operating in the system do not mitigate or completely eliminate the "imbalance" so that even transient and minimal putative problems simply don't impose any damage or hazard.

          Third, if there's any sort of contention that such an "imbalance" might "eventually catch up to us," it's got to be supported by proof which establishes by way of objectively verifiable evidence precisely WHAT might "catch up to us," HOW it might have any sort of adverse effects, and what are the precise costs of prevention when considering the absolutely undefined alleged liabilities to be imposed by the "chemical imbalance" that this stupid sack of shit is babbling about.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @Tucci78@Ace81 Freeman Dyson "[m]y objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much....." Tootsie78 You are a such a humungous fucking BORE. Man I'd say R Paul would go apeshit if he knew people like you were turning off voters with your endless wankology. I'll back to you after Paul fails to get the nomination to rub it in. By the way how's your grandson's little asshole holding up to your constant probing?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @Shaman4@Ace81 - Here, asshole, let me complete the quotation of Freeman Dyson on global warming that you'd truncated:

          "M]y objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it’s rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have."

          Source is "Freeman Dyson Takes on the Climate Establishment at http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2151 The full audio of the interview is available by way of that Web site, where Dyson had continued:

          "I think the difference between me and most of the experts is that I think I have a much wider view of the whole subject. ...

          "...[Y]ou got a very strong feeling for how uncertain the whole business is, that the five reservoirs of carbon all are in close contact — the atmosphere, the upper level of the ocean, the land vegetation, the topsoil, and the fossil fuels. They are all about equal in size. They all interact with each other strongly. So you can’t understand any of them unless you understand all of them. Essentially that was the conclusion. It’s a problem of very complicated ecology, and to isolate the atmosphere and the ocean just as a hydrodynamics problem makes no sense."

          A bit later, he went on:

          "You can learn a lot from [climate models], but you cannot learn what’s going to happen 10 years from now.

          "What’s wrong with the models. I mean, I haven’t examined them in detail, (but) I know roughly what’s in them. And the basic problem is that in the case of climate, very small structures, like clouds, dominate. And you cannot model them in any realistic way. They are far too small and too diverse."

          As I'd said, Dr. Dyson's qualifications in this regard vest in his mastery of scientific method, which is fatally lacking from the criminal fraudsters masquerading as "the consensus"on the subject of man-made global climate change.

          Still bored, doofus?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @Tucci78 Can you say with 100% certainty that global warming is not happening? Of course not. Can you say with 100% certainty that reducing greenhouse emissions will not benefit the earth? Of course. I am really not sure why you insist on arguing with people who are just saying "SAVE OUR TREES, REDUCE POLLUTION, SAVE OUR EARTH!" And yes, I'm all for stricter regulations on these corporations who are profiting off of selling and destroying mother nature and her beautiful resources.

          Your whole argument, including all those links you post which aren't even from credible sources, just other lunatics such as yourself, is that the science is compromised because the people doing it have a lot to lose. Except, that it's been 200+ years of studies regarding the climate changes, so the threat to these people's jobs isn't really imminent. If they say it's not greenhouse gas, then they just keep searching until they find what it is, if they say it is greenhouse gas, then they are on the team to figure out how to reverse the effects. Either way, there will be more research needed, so your argument is once again, fruitless. All you're "science" can't hide the fact that you're an idiot.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @Ace81 "Can you say with 100% certainty that global warming is not happening? [...] Can you say with 100% certainty that reducing greenhouse emissions will not benefit the earth?"

          1) Whatever global warming is happening is NOT the result of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (aCO2) release into the Earth's atmosphere. Of this I am certain to an effective 100% reliabilty.

          2) Reducing aCO2 emissions will have no beneficial effect upon the Earth's climate. Again, I make this statement with a level of certainty approaching as closely to 100% as I can conceive.

          I am also certain that your fixation on "mother nature" is powerfully indicative of an Oedipus complex on your part.

          And I'm not much of a Freudian at all.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  17. If we control our pollution, then "global warming" is irrelevant. If we control our pollution, and "global warming" continues, then it is just natural processes. We can use our technology to deal with it. I'm more concerned with the governemnt than anything else. The government is to govern, not be my wet nurse.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • @JKellyH - "If we control our pollution, then 'global warming is irrelevant."

      That depends on the extent to which you regard the products of complete combustion - carbon dioxide and water - as "pollution."

      The "global warming" alarmists - including our Fraudulence-in-Chief, Odumbo - regard CO2 as "pollution" and the latter vicious usurping foreign-born product of a bigamous union has commanded his Environmental Protection Agency to rule that CO2 (which you're exhaling right now as you read this) is "pollution" on the order of sulfuric acid and hydrogen sulfide and carbon monoxide.

      The devil here is (as always) in the details. No honest, decent, honorable human being has any real objection to regulations abating objectively harmful pollution - negative chemical externalities imposed upon unwilling and non-participating persons.

      The emission into the atmosphere of a trace gas chemically indistinguishable from the trace amount of CO2 normally found in that atmosphere, however, cannot be considered "pollution" except by flagrant liars, raving lunatics, and religious fanatics.

      I'd say that the people pushing the AGW fraud in this forum necessarily fit into these categories, and must be treated accordingly.

      --

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  18. As an athiest, I am offended by the talk of global warming as a religion. It is a political tactic used to discredit those who threaten their interests. While there is no direct evidence due to the incredibly complex nature of climate science, that does not at all mean that those advocating action to mitigate the most potentially destructive consequences of global warming are perpetrating a hoax. I base my assumptions on circumstantial evidence and observation. However, I am not out in the field taking measurements and extrapolating data- and it is unrealistic to expect everyone who assumes global warming to be true to do the same to back up their point. That is why it is insanely stupid to lash out at those who assume something to be true based on their best understanding. It IS appropriate to lash out at those spreading confusion, half-truths and all out lies to prove their point- and that goes for both sides of the debate.

    While I understand Al Gore's attempts to scare people into taking action, I think his approach is wrongheaded and sensationalist. I tend to agree with Bjorn Lomborg's approach of forgoing the scare tactics and by investing in renewable energy- instead of penalizing the fossil fuel industry (except when they deserve it for doing environmental harm). He is absolutely correct that the Kyoto approach is a failed one, and that it is really nothing more than talk- as opposed to real action.

    I personally think there is a huge potential for innovators to develop technologies that can harvest the pollutants we've been releasing into the atmosphere to sequester and use as a valuable resource. USC's Lokar Hydrocarbon Research Institute has been working on a "sponge" material that passively absorbs CO2 at room temperatiure and releases it when heated to 185 degrees F. That is the kind of innovation we need. A win-win type of innovation. I think energy storage technology and more efficient and economical renewables hold a lot of promise. Of course we'll have shakeouts (ie: Solyndra), but sustainable industries will ultimately thrive.

    Stating that global warming is a hoax based on the perception that HadCRU engaged in a sinister coverup is overly simplistic and wrong. The situation has been analyzed, the research redone by different teams, and the results have all been quite similar. This is just as alarmist as those howling about the inevitable doom we all face if we do not kick the oil habit.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • @robotron When was it talked about as religion?

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • @Shaman4 Plenty of times. Just Google "global warming religion" and you'll get about 70,000,000 results ;). Michael Crichton, who has been referenced plenty of times in this forum, was one of the prominent skeptics of global warming who has compared environmentalism to a religion several times- most prominently in a speech in 2003. A lot of skeptics like to quote him.

        People who think global warming is happening often say they "believe in" global warming, rather than correctly state they "think" it is happening based on their best understanding of the science. It is true that there are plenty who "believe" it, but it is also true that there are plenty of people who don't "believe it" rather than state they think it isn't happening due to such and such evidence. They are equally as "religious" using that standard, which I think is silly in the first place.

        There is an important distinction. A belief assumes something to be fact based solely on faith, while "thinking" something is true based on evidence is entirely different. The two separate groups who "think" vs "believe" may share the same goals, but they are not the same. Believers are much more stubborn, while thinkers are much more pragmatic and are likely to change their mind as new facts come to light.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • @Shaman4@robotron - "When was it talked about as religion?"

        Inasmuch as the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) contention lacks any objective evidence in support of its supposed causative mechanism, and we cannot to any extent speak of any sort of genuinely scientific methodology being used in the warmist camp even to simulate honest investigation in any way at all, it is either a doctrine accepted on religious faith - without honest intellectual integrity or intent to elucidate a rational basis for argument - or it's simply and undeniably a bloody lie.

        To the extent that the clowns pushing the AGW line of shit in this forum are NOT bloody liars (and that's demonstrably not much), they must be religious True Believers, proselytizing on behalf of their cult.

        In either case, I'd accept the argument that they're beneath contempt, save for the fact that there's no other way in which to regard them.

        --

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @Tucci78@Shaman4 And your evidence? Quotes from Anthony Watts? The writings of Joanne Nova and Michael Crichton, and pre-BEST Richard Muller? FOIA2009.zip, the "harry read me" email, and all of that debunked stuff that HadCRU has been cleared of? Your venomous attacks on those who don't agree with you?

          You can't be taken seriously until you dish out respect in place of insults. If you truly know more than anyone else on this forum (which seems to be your attitude), you would also exhibit the type of humility that is consistent with those who speak the truth. You have a long way to go on that front.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @robotron@Shaman4 - "And your evidence?"

          Not MY evidence, you lying, stupid son of a bitch, but rather the physical, objectively verified (and verifiable) evidence supporting the preposterous anthropogenic global warming (AGW) conjecture.

          Let me explain it yet again, you flaming sack of shit.

          When a proposition is advanced in scientific discourse, the burden of proof is upon the individuals who bring the assertion forward.

          Based on the precedent observation of phenomena, Einstein advances the theory of gravitic lensing, the ability of matter in sufficient volume to literally warp space itself so as to bend light. His theory predicts that, given certain conditions (such as with regard to starlight passing close by the mass of the sun durign a total eclipse) it will be possible to see and to measure the effect of that gravitic lensing.

          Several years later, observations made during such a total eclipse of the sun proves this theory, as have subsequent astronomical observations. The theory holds.

          The AGW conjecture, however, has never been supported by observed evidence that the trace anthropogenic increase in a trace greenhouse atmospheric gas has ever or COULD ever cause significant (i.e., reliably measurable) increase in global average temperatures.

          It is not required that those of us who comment upon the LACK OF VALIDATION for the AGW conjecture provide evidence of our own that invalidates this preposterous bogosity.

          All we need to do is observe that the proponents of this astonishingly whacked-out conjecture have failed to deliver proof that supports their key assertion.

          Not that investigations conducted by honest climate scientists (Lindzen, Baliunas, Choi, etc.) haven't provided objective and verified physical evidence that the wild-eyed hysterical nonsense of the alarmist "consensus" is just so much pure bullshit.

          --

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  19. @CNG_Oklahoma - Bullpuckey. "Gasland" is not an honest documentary in any way, but rather an INTENSELY political propaganda piece as suffused with friggin' lies as is Algore's "An Inconvenient Truth."

    Gad, makes me want to puke just writing the title of that "Triumph of the Will" bolus of pure bilge.

    Anyone genuinely familiar with the technology of dirigible deep-rock drilling, concrete-casing, fractional perforation, and hydraulic fracturing ("fracking") knows good and goddam well that the frenzied Watermelon hatred of what is, after all, SIXTY-YEAR-OLD extraction technologies, has been borne of no genuine environmental concern whatsoever, but merely the 'viro terror of what plentiful, inexpensive natural gas (methane) and liquid petrochemicals mean to the industrialized civilization these bastids have been campaigning to destroy.

    "Gasland" is very much a complete tissue of lies. That ever-so-impressive trick with lighting the methane gas coming out of solution in the flow of artesian water from a kitchen tap has been a kind of parlor trick in central Pennsylvania and West Virginia for DECADES, beginning long before any fracking had ever been undertaken to extract natural gas from deep shale strata.

    It's the natural and entirely harmless result of seepage from those strata into the aquifers at much shallower depths, and it is upon those aquifers that artesian wells draw. No big goddam deal.

    As for the hydraulic fracturing fluids - whoop-te-do - about which the Watermelons squeal and caper, they're almost entirely plain old water, to which are added extremely small amounts of surfactants (ever take Colace or other stool softeners, folks?), detergents, and various petrochemical distillates.

    Petrochemical distillates are already IN crude oil, people.

    "Gasland" is purest crap, and anybody making reference to that political pack of lies had best peddle it elsewhere.

    Nobody here is dumb enough to buy it.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • @Tucci78@CNG_Oklahoma I can absolutely concur with Tucci's comment, as I work in the oil/gas drilling equipment business. Gasland is a poor documentary, in terms of understanding how oil and gas wells are drilled, cemented, perforated, and produced. While there are some pretty nasty chemicals used in the fracking process, the risk to groundwater is quite limited.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • @ExLonghorn@CNG_Oklahoma

      What I would like to know is how the byproducts of fracking can be disposed of in a way that prevents negative environmental and public health consequences. The process itself seems inherently risky to any surrounding water table. Now we're hearing about brine injection wells lubricating faults and causing seismic activity, which may be opening up underground pathways for that nasty byproduct to seep into surrounding groundwater. I have a hard time believing that there is little risk, as we've been seeing more reports coming from property owners who have fallen ill and/or been unable to continue using their water wells.

      I think it is very important we ask these tough questions, just as skeptics will ask tough questions about climate change/global warming (whatever you want to call it) to keep the science on track. I think some very intelligent people have worked very hard for years on developing this process to be as clean and safe as possible. However, with the rate of growth we're seeing in the deployment of these types of operations, we need to make sure we're not accidentally fouling our nest so bad and so fast that we'll realize that mistakes were made after it is much too late and too expensive to clean up.

      While I don't believe the oil and gas industry is intentionally polluting groundwater, I don't believe the people who say they have been negatively affected are liars out to make a quick buck as some may counter with. I think the concerns are legitimate, and we ought to be honest about what we can do to ensure this process is done with the minimal amount of pollution and negative consequences. Natural gas is a potentially great replacement for crude derived transportation fuels, but it isn't as clean as advertised if the kind of side effects we're hearing about are unavoidable.

      Ultimately, there is no panacea to our energy issues, but there are optimal vs. suboptimal trajectories.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  20. It's global climate change, not global warming, it's an important distinction.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • @JoeMud - "It's global climate change, not global warming, it's an important distinction."

      Nope, not one stinkin' little bit.

      What's the alleged MECHANISM by which the purposeful combustion of petrochemical fuels is supposed to induce "global climate change," Mr. Mud?

      Nothing more - or less - than the conjectural "greenhouse" effect of increased atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) due to human activities resulting in the generation of energy by way of burning hydrocarbons.

      It's "global warming." It always was "global warming." It must necessarily always BE "global warming."

      The AGW fraudsters changed their emphasis to "global climate change" when these charlatans began to notice in 1998 that THERE WAS NO MORE GLOBAL WARMING taking place, and they had to re-brand their scam in order to "keep up the skeer."

      Keeping in mind the ridiculous excuse for a "scientific" basis underlying this most spectacular scheme of pillage in the history of the human race, it is, was, and will always be "global warming."

      So why are you trying to go along with the warmist quacks and suckers?

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • @Tucci78@JoeMud

        relax man.

        global climate change includes warming, but also refers to differences in relative moisture contents from region to region, an increase in severity of weather, shifting of deserts and water levels. ... so as you can see it's more than just warming.

        no need to be so confrontational. you're just setting yourself up for an argument that must be won, instead of discussing something important with another adult.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @Tucci78

          when 98% of the scientific community says something is so, it's best to believe them. They are the most informed at any one time.

          it's always best to error on the side of caution.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @Tucci78

          nothing bad happens if they are wrong. the end of modern civilization crumbles if they are right. pretty easy choice for me.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @JoeMud@Tucci78 See discussions below. He's just abusive by nature.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @Friedlon7@Tucci78

          there is hope for everyone, lol :-)

          we all want to be heard, but when we go nuts and get angry no-one listens.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @JoeMud - Bullshit. Now it can clearly be discerned that you're willfully refusing to address the putative MECHANISM whereby human action is supposed to be inducing "global climate change" according to those who have imposed upon their neighbors punishments designed to compel the reduction of their victims' "carbon footprint."

          I'm going to be "confrontational" as all hell whenever I encounter sons of bitches like you, Mr. Mudd.

          This is PRECISELY "an argument that must be won," and only through honest discussion -which you appear to be evading - can the consequences of this fraud be appreciated and its malevolent effects be ended.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @JoeMud - "when 98% of the scientific community says something is so, it's best to believe them."

          Again, bullshit.

          First, this endless warmist crap about "98%" is a lie, and has always been a lie. This mendacious propaganda resulted from an online survey to which over 10,000 academically qualified individuals (including many who get their livings exclusively as scientific investigators and/or academics) from whom the duplicitous "survey" operators drew SEVENTY-NINE respondents whom they qualified as "climate scientists."

          Of these SEVENTY-NINE carefully cherry-picked survey participants, seventy-seven said that they "believed" in man-made global climate change.

          That's 77 out of a chosen group of SEVENTY-NINE members of a response base made up of more than 10,000 interested and scientifically literate persons.

          And there's where you get your bullshit "98%," Mr. Mud.

          You want to "err on the side of caution," you stupid, lying, dimwit?'

          How about erring on the side of ACCURACY, which is by far the most responsible way to maintain due "caution"?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @JoeMud - "nothing bad happens if they are wrong."

          Dreimal bullshit, Mr. Mud.

          Ideas - especially bad ideas based on blunders and lies - have definite consequences, among which are the imposition of both direct and indirect (opportunity) costs upon real, live human beings.

          There is no possibility that the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) alarmists posing as "climate scientists" have ever been - or could ever be - right. Not in 1974 when this insane notion first surfaced, nor in 1989 when the IPCC was created to grind the fraud politically into the faces of the planet's population, nor in 2009 when the first Climategate release confirmed what those of us on the skeptical side had been publicly speculating was happening within the secretive cabal of this fraudulent "consensus" you're stupidly touting.

          Your effort to push the precautionary principle argument (look it up, you jerk-off; you're on the Web as you're reading this) is friggin' PITIFUL.

          You want "an easy choice," do you?

          Let me propose one between a hangman's noose and a rubber hose to the exhaust of your car.

          --

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @Friedlon7@JoeMud - Nah. I'm HONEST by nature.

          For a persevering liar like those who keep pushing the "man-made global climate change" fraud, appropriate honesty simply seems "abusive."

          Can't be "abusive" if it's precisely what you bastids deserve, right?

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @JoeMud@Friedlon7 "when we go nuts and get angry no-one listens."

          Au contraire, you lying son-of-a-bitch. EVERYBODY's listening, and that's precisely what screws you and your fellow fraudsters to death.

          --

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @Tucci78@JoeMud@Friedlon7

          you are an ugly person Tucci78, i feel bad for you. :-(

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @Tucci78@Friedlon7

          you do the ron paul campaign a great disservice with your attitude and approach.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @JoeMud@Friedlon7 - "you are an ugly person Tucci78, i feel bad for you."

          Okay, good guess. Through absolutely no fault of my own, I'm an ugly cuss.

          But you're a goddam lying son-of-a-bitch, and that's very much due to whatever malignant evil rottenness serves you in lieu of a sense of morality, and therefore very much to be damned.

          And I feel just wonderful in pointing that out for all to appreciate.

          --

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @JoeMud@Friedlon7 - "you do the ron paul campaign a great disservice with your attitude and approach."

          Nah. I'm behaving entirely like the primary care attending who'd called Dr. Paul in on a gynecological consultation. He's very polite, behaves with becoming diffidence, and leaves the hard confrontations to the family doctor who's going to be responsible for continuing medical management long after Dr. Paul has signed off the case.

          I'd met Dr. Paul personally for the first and likely last time about twenty-three years ago at a convention, and we got along just fine despite the fact that he's vehemently anti-abortion and I'm vehemently pro-choice.

          He's an awfully nice guy. I'm not.

          He does his part in "the ron paul campaign" and I do my little bit on this fan site to kick sons of bitches like you in the teeth at every opportunity.

          Those of us in the medical profession fully understand the benefits of a division-of-labor set up.

          In the meanwhile, why don't you just go to hell, where you belong?

          --

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @Tucci78@Friedlon7

          not much to live for huh.

          if you really like RP you are hurting his campaign.

          but if you continue, i and everyone else will have to conclude that you are an E-thug sent here to make a mockery of the Ron Paul campaign.

          or you are a 12 year old who is trying to be happy by attempting to make others upset.

          in any case, I, like everyone else here, (and possibly in your life as well) are done with you. i didn't read anything you wrote, no-one reads anything you write, and i wont read anything you write in the future.

          I hope you find true enlightenment and real happiness someday.

          goodbye forever 😉

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @JoeMud@Friedlon7 - "if you really like RP you are hurting his campaign."

          Ooh, if you really feel so strongly about it, why don'tcha engrave that sentiment on galvanized sheet steel in BIG letters, fold it until it's all corners, and shove it right up your anus?

          No Vaseline, now. That'd be cheating.

          Mr. Mud, you're a friggin' liar on the subject of this thread, which is "Global Warming."

          You're obviously a goddam ignoramus, here to recite nothing more than Joe-Romm-ish idiot "Liberal" fascist Watermelon talking points, without the ability or the willingness to appreciate the plain facts of the matter, whether it ranges into the consideration of the absence of actual verifiable EVIDENCE of anthropogenic global climate change, the methods of such alleged evidence's investigation and analysis, or the conclusions reasonably and responsibly to be draw from such activities.

          But I'm delighted that you're stupid enough to assert that I'm "a 12 year old."

          Gawd, my oldest grandkid presented me with my first great-grandchild last year. Pretty good for "a 12 year old," ain't it?

          As for you, I do sincerely hope you meet IRL with someone literally as willing to kick your teeth out of your lying mouth as I am wont to do in cyberspace.

          You so dearly deserve such a learning experience.

          --

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @Tucci78@JoeMud@Friedlon7

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @Tucci78@JoeMud@Friedlon7

          Glad to see this back-and-forth has stuck to the high road (LOL). Anger is a sign of desperation, which is a sign of a failing (or already failed) argument. I haven't seen any signs of angry confrontation (LOL again).

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @robotron@JoeMud@Friedlon7 - "Anger is a sign of desperation, which is a sign of a failing (or already failed) argument."

          Bullshit yet again. None of you lying Watermelon sons of bitches merit any sentiment from decent, honorable, HONEST human beings except contempt.

          How can one show "anger" for something that one scrapes off the sole of one's shoe?

          It is the yammering repetition of constant Watermelon lies, in willful ignorance of the fact that all of your shit has been encountered and hosed off this site repeatedly, that marks the very real flop-sweaty "desperation" on your part, the "desperation" of thieving frauds caught in the glaring light of factual reality.

          And thus to hell with you. Go back into your holes, you friggin' idiots. The whole world knows you for what you are, and greets you with nothing but the hatred you've so thoroughly earned.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @Tucci78@JoeMud@Friedlon7 That poor little kid. Just don't beat on him like you did your 3 ex-wives...

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @Tucci78@JoeMud@Friedlon7

          "None of you lying Watermelon sons of bitches merit any sentiment from decent, honorable, HONEST human beings except contempt."

          "Decent, honorable" and "HONEST" are traits you evidently do not possess. If you were any of those, you would be humbly contributing to other's understanding of facts rather than calling them names and attempt to tear them down on a personal level.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @robotron@JoeMud@Friedlon7 There being absolutely NO interest on the part of you lying Watermelon sons of bitches in any "understanding of facts" (as you keep proving relentlessly), there is both the taxonomic necessity of correctly characterizing you - as deceitful, disgraceful, dishonorable, lying predators bent upon the pillage of your peaceful neighbors - and condemning you for your enmity toward the society in which you live and the people suffering your duplicities.

          I've made much effort to treat with you willfully obtuse warmista propagandists on the polite supposition that one or two of you MIGHT be presenting here in an honest search for reasoned disputation on the subject of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), only to have from you nothing beyond the continued repetition of bullshit talking points.

          Impervious willful ignorance and the regurgitation of "Liberal" fascist litany on the great "man-made global climate change" fraud can only be interpreted as diagnostic of undeniable dishonesty on your part and that of your co-religionists.

          When such a finding is confirmed to a reasonable degree of surety, how else are you to be treated except as liars and creatures with criminal designs upon the rights of innocent people?

          --

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @Tucci78@JoeMud

          It's unfortunate that many people ignore the substantive matter regarding the AGW when confronted with very possible/probable arguments against them. And I don't understand why these points which you bring up are never scrutinized with the "official" climate dogma. I see this as being more about religion than legitimate science in my opinion. To have thousands of scientists who have data disproving their "official" data are not welcome and are marginalized just like Ron Paul is.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @SoCold@JoeMud - "It's unfortunate that many people ignore the substantive matter regarding the AGW when confronted with very possible/probable arguments against them."

          Not at all "unfortunate." It's simply a manifest of the fact that this whole AGW kerfluffle is a fraud.

          Thirty or thirty-five years ago, it may well have been an honest blunder among a small cadre of academically credentialed bloody incompetents who imposed themselves on the legitimate but extremely marginal discipline of climatology to peddle their unbelievable (and utterly unfounded) surmise about how awful-mean-bad-horrible purposeful human action was turning benign Mother Gaea into a hostile pressure cooker that would destroy all life.

          I remember thinking that it was nothing more than the typical 'viro bullshit we'd been hearing since the first Earth Day was conjured up to celebrate the birthday of V.I. Lenin.

          And hadn't I ought to have copped a clue about Watermelons - "green on the outside, red to the core" - when I'd made THAT connection?

          You may "see this as being more about religion than legitimate science," but my perspective goes back more than three decades, and I'm more than reasonably convinced that it's really nothing much more than a concerted theft of value by way of deceit, aided by the proclivities of vicious authoritarian sons of bitches to latch onto anything they can find to plunder and otherwise oppress their innocent neighbors.

          If it's "religion," it's the sort of "religion" that facilitated the confiscation of heretics' worldly goods by the ruling thugs both temporal and spiritual following the victims' auto-da-fe and executions.

          When I got my undergraduate degree in biology, I never knew how well those required courses in theology and church history would eventually serve me.

          Go figure.

          --

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @Tucci78@SoCold@JoeMud Tootsie78 - You seem to have a Ted Haggard like obsession with shoving things up people's asses which leads me to believe your overt contempt for human nature, that is your own inner demons, expresses itself in extreme anal-centric abuse towards others and by extension the earth itself. In other words, go fuck a lady boy and then have a good cry. Get it out of your system. I mean all that violence and 3 failed marriages..... you've got to work it out of your system tootsie,

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • @Shaman4 @Tucci78 @SoCold @JoeMud
          Nailed it! ROFL

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • Considering that you Watermelon shit-for-brains have nothing but excrement between your ears, the most expeditious route to your psyches is definitely by way of your cloacas. Not so?

          Certainly, nothing is gained by appealing to what we'll laughingly call your "intellects."

          Were it possible to cede you anything of "human nature" apart from your obvious desire to defraud and otherwise despoil your innocent victims - in other words, the criminal animus of incorrigible thieves - you might warrant treatment with something other than contemptuous dismissal, but this not being the case, why don't each of you just shove his rostral knob up the ass of the next, there to create a tidy circle of lying "Liberal" fascist feebs, endorsing and satisfying each other in saecula saeculorum?

          Certainly, your lying bullshit isn't impressing anybody but your co-religionists and fellow fraudsters, is it?

          --

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


1 × = seven

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>