2013: 4th warmest year on record

LOL!!!! "I'm not really a scientist. I play one on tv. And btw, we're gonna melt!!!!":D

And of course a crazy moron like you does not know that what he is saying is what the real scientists are saying.


Look out! Behind you! The govt is gonna get you!!! LOL
 
First mistake made by the GOP denier bitch Kay Hutchinson " Oh the change in CO2 is slight. Only a few parts per million. " WRONG. It's a 40% increase.

OK next. She says says there in no consensus because a few scientists disagree. WRONG. 97% is as close to consensus as one is likely to get in science.

OK next. She says we can't make policy on unproven science. WRONG. 97% is as close to proven as science gets.

Then this : "Oh CO2 is good for agriculture". Maybe, but rapid climate change is not. GW will NOT be good for agriculture. Just ask farmers in CA right now. Extreme weather will not be good for farmers.

Then she says what one would expect a congresswoman from a big coal state to say...."Oh it will too expensive, where is the cost/benefit analysis?"

But back up the truck. How can one do a c/b analysis if you don't understand the problem, which she obviously does not.?


I like how Bill Nye had a picture of the Arctic ice loss to show. It seems that the deniers respond best to simple things like cartoons and pictures. It's hard to argue with a picture.

Another 97% retarded parrot sighting

XP9dZtK.jpg
 
You're such fucking moron gwb........

The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is extremely likely (at least 95% probability) that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels. In addition, it is likely that some potential further greenhouse gas warming has been offset by increased aerosols.[1][2][3][4] This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys.
National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on climate change. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), summarized below:
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[5]
Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.[6]
"Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale.[7] Some of the effects in temperate and polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative.[7] Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming."[7]
"[...] the range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time"[8]
"The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources)"[9]
No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[10] which in 2007[11] updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[12] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.
 
So all you can do is cut and paste text from climate alarmists sites without even providing a link to the source? Is this nonsense from the California Institute of Technology or the Al Gore funded Skeptical Science website?


You're such fucking moron gwb........

The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is extremely likely (at least 95% probability) that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels. In addition, it is likely that some potential further greenhouse gas warming has been offset by increased aerosols.[1][2][3][4] This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys.
National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on climate change. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), summarized below:
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[5]
Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.[6]
"Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale.[7] Some of the effects in temperate and polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative.[7] Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming."[7]
"[...] the range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time"[8]
"The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources)"[9]
No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[10] which in 2007[11] updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[12] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.
 
Maybe the servers are too hot to handle the content. Global warming and that sort of thing ya know.


LOL good points,Lucrum. The really strange part is why they changed the name of the scam from ''global warming'' to climate change:D

Its also really quite strange how so many so called scientists do NOT know the difference between a trend + a prediction.Praise the Lord + pass the ammo:D
 
What's a long-term trend? 38 years? 150 years? 213 years? 5,000 years as in the Bible

Or is it the full 4.2 billion years this rock has theoretically existed?

And regarding man-made activities, why doesn't anyone ever mention or measure the amount of CO2 released by exhaling humans? That source probably greatly exceeds all other sources combined.

Find a way to reduce the human population (war and disease are good candidates), and *POOF*, the global warming ***issue*** goes away...

I think that qualifies for the "Obvious that's too obvious"....
 
Is fc still trying to claim man made co2 causes global warming even though it accounts for just a tiny fraction of one percent of greenhouses gasses.

what a moron troll he is.
you would think he would have produced some science showing it by now.

Oh wait... the science shows co2 trails warming.
So that is a odd co2 lags warming but it is causing the warming.

No wonder he has no science.
 
Back
Top