Me too. Going from global warming to climate change because it didn't get warm, and now going from climate change to climate disruption, because the climate isn't changing, is something only a trickster would do.
2014 was a summer sizzler: Earth's hottest on record
- Thread starter futurecurrents
- Start date
Me too. Going from global warming to climate change because it didn't get warm, and now going from climate change to climate disruption, because the climate isn't changing, is something only a trickster would do.
OK fine, you are one of the less than three percent of climatologists that disagree with the consensus. You ARE a climate scientist right? No?
I'm wondering pie. How can a 40% rise in the earth's most important greenhouse gas NOT cause temps to rise? Is there some kind of cooling going on to offset it?
Why am I asking you? You are not a climate scientist and are obviously being paid by a think tank to spread lies.
Why am I asking you? You are not a climate scientist and are obviously being paid by a think tank to spread lies.
- These guys are real scientists, as opposed to what piehole is.
- The Geological Society of America
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)9
John D. Rockefeller famously founded Standard Oil in 1870, a company that would become the largest oil refiner in the world as well as the basis for his family’s immense wealth. Now, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the family’s $860 million philanthropic organization, has announced it will completely divest from fossil fuels.
The New York Times’ John Schwartz reports on a growing trend:
The people who are selling shares of energy stocks are well aware that their actions are unlikely to have an immediate impact on the companies, given their enormous market capitalizations and cash flow.
Even so, some say they are taking action to align their assets with their environmental principles. Others want to shame companies that they believe are recklessly contributing to a warming planet…
Although it is unlikely that divestments will have any measurable financial impact in the immediate future, Stephen Heintz, president of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, says the decision is about more than money: “The action we’re taking is symbolism, but it is important symbolism. We’re making a moral case, but also, increasingly an economic case.”
JOANNA ROTHKOPF
The New York Times’ John Schwartz reports on a growing trend:
In recent years, 180 institutions — including philanthropies, religious organizations, pension funds and local governments — as well as hundreds of wealthy individual investors have pledged to sell assets tied to fossil fuel companies from their portfolios and to invest in cleaner alternatives. In all, the groups have pledged to divest assets worth more than $50 billion from portfolios, and the individuals more than $1 billion, according to Arabella Advisors, a firm that consults with philanthropists and investors to use their resources to achieve social goals…
The people who are selling shares of energy stocks are well aware that their actions are unlikely to have an immediate impact on the companies, given their enormous market capitalizations and cash flow.
Even so, some say they are taking action to align their assets with their environmental principles. Others want to shame companies that they believe are recklessly contributing to a warming planet…
Although it is unlikely that divestments will have any measurable financial impact in the immediate future, Stephen Heintz, president of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, says the decision is about more than money: “The action we’re taking is symbolism, but it is important symbolism. We’re making a moral case, but also, increasingly an economic case.”
JOANNA ROTHKOPF
With all these thousands of papers and this fake consensus we are still waiting for one bit of science showing man made co2 causes warming?
We now have dozens of recent papers showing the sun contributes and the tides.
We have papers showing co2 trails change in ocean temperature
We have papers showing water vapor has a impact
We have studies showing clouds near the equator probably have a huge impact
We have studies from NASA showing CO2 acts as a thermostat and blocks the sun's energy thereby cooling the earth
We have studies showing more co2 increases green plants which has a cooling impact.. in models according to NASA.
BUT... WE HAVE NO STUDIES SHOWING MAN MADE CO2 WARMS THE EARTH even though the dems spend billions on these agw nutter climatologists.
Why?
We now have dozens of recent papers showing the sun contributes and the tides.
We have papers showing co2 trails change in ocean temperature
We have papers showing water vapor has a impact
We have studies showing clouds near the equator probably have a huge impact
We have studies from NASA showing CO2 acts as a thermostat and blocks the sun's energy thereby cooling the earth
We have studies showing more co2 increases green plants which has a cooling impact.. in models according to NASA.
BUT... WE HAVE NO STUDIES SHOWING MAN MADE CO2 WARMS THE EARTH even though the dems spend billions on these agw nutter climatologists.
Why?
Last edited:
Isn't it always that way with the left? The argument is over. It's settled! No need for any further debate. No more questions allowed. Plug in whatever topic you like. Everything is settled far as the left is concerned. The left is absolutely terrified of any debate. The next question sends a chill up their spine. It's the next question that just might blow their pet theory right out of the water. Can't have that, now can we?
The left is cut from the same clothe as the radical Islamist. Unquestioning obedience is the only acceptable behavior. Zealots are like that. And they call themselves the party of intellectuals. If that self proclamation wasn't so horribly inaccurate, it would be hysterically funny.
BINGO!