Conservatives losing trust in science because of liberal science like global warming.

W

wilburbear

In 2008, I started a thread referring to the Global Warming Hoax.

I coined the term right here on ET. Media has been all over this issue, it was even mentioned on the floor of the U.S. Senate.

In 2008, a liberal-scientist said there would be NO ice at the North Pole in 5 years.

This is a reminder to go to the North Pole NOW and gather up the few remaining arm loads of ice!!!!!!!!!!!

And a reminder not to let the liberals shame you under the banner of science when they themselves believe in the GLOBAL WARMING HOAX.
 
Its even worse than that...they didnt say in 5 years there would be no ice...they said there would be no ice in the summer of 2008!!!

http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...-no-ice-at-north-pole-this-summer-855406.html

But dont worry...the liberal scientists came out in 2009 and revised it. They said in TEN years there would be no ice. Gives them some breathing room for a 10 year old article to get lost on the internet so when 2019 comes along, they can come out with another revision.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/north-pole-ice-cap-gone-424896

Oh but wait...those liberal scientists couldnt keep their mouths shut. In march of 2011, they said the ice would be gone by Sept of 2011

http://www.science20.com/chatter_box/arctic_ice_march_2011-76831

So Al Gore said the sea levels were supposed to rise 20 feet! How much did they rise in 2011? 3 feet? 5 feet? 10 feet? No? Well then at least a few inches right? No? Wait, what did you say? Sea levels didnt rise? They FELL!!! A quarter of an inch!!

Now can people understand why conservatives dont trust liberal scientists.
 
OK, so that was one guy's guess/simulation. The IPCC and the vast majority of scientists were and still are saying sometime in the mid to second half of 2100.
Here's some quotes from Maslowski....

" My statement you quoted and was printed in The New York Times of 2013, my first presentation where I actually had this projection stated exclusively was about 4 or 5 years ago in San Francisco, at American Geophysical Union poll meeting. So, I'm not actually upgrading my projection, I'm just saying that it may happen sooner but we were one of the early people who were saying that it might happen within the next decade, instead of by the end of this century."

", the multi-national climate simulation study have predicted the ice might be disappearing in summer, the northern summer in the Arctic, maybe sometime by the end of this 21st century.
There are some model simulations, single model simulations, that are suggesting that it could possibly occur as early as 2050 or maybe even as early as 2030."

http://beyondzeroemissions.org/medi...-now-he-says-ma


This is an example of how news outlets grab on to the most sensational of stories and put it out there is if this is what all of science believes. When really they just want to sell papers. The same thing happened with the much hyped ice-age predictions which also was a minority and mostly unsupported opinion. The Guardian seems to have done this a lot. Then the deniers hold these up as if they should be some condemnation of the science as a whole.
 
Quote from pspr:

It's all over but the cooling.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304636404577291352882984274.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
More...

Here we go again, it's like a game of whack-a-mole. I addressed already, but facts that counter the ideology of righties are ignored by righties.

First hint of bullshit..... it's in the Wall St Urinal opinion section.

Second hint is the misleading statement "What is happening to global temperatures in reality? The answer is: almost nothing for more than 10 years"

cherry-picked points on a ten year chart will only show climate trends by luck. That is a ludicrously short term to use.

And who is this Happer guy? Oh that's right, he's a PHYSICIST. That's different than a climatologist, 97 % of whom agree on AGW.

but by all means, cling to the minority opinions of fringe characters supported by fossil-fuel fed corporations if it helps preserve your ego and political ideology.
 
Quote from futurecurrents:


cherry-picked points on a ten year chart will only show climate trends by luck. That is a ludicrously short term to use.
More...

Funny that you think its ludicrous because the world hasnt been keeping track of weather records that long. 50 years in most of the world and 10 years in many countries in africa. The US has been keep track the longest just over 150 years, but we are only 5% of the world. You cant "cherry pick" certain areas and say "Look! It got 1 degree hotter this year than it did in 1850!"
 
Quote from futurecurrents:

Here we go again, it's like a game of whack-a-mole. I addressed already, but facts that counter the ideology of righties are ignored by righties.

First hint of bullshit..... it's in the Wall St Urinal opinion section.

Second hint is the misleading statement "What is happening to global temperatures in reality? The answer is: almost nothing for more than 10 years"

cherry-picked points on a ten year chart will only show climate trends by luck. That is a ludicrously short term to use.

And who is this Happer guy? Oh that's right, he's a PHYSICIST. That's different than a climatologist, 97 % of whom agree on AGW.

but by all means, cling to the minority opinions of fringe characters supported by fossil-fuel fed corporations if it helps preserve your ego and political ideology.
More...

what do climatologists do for a living if they were to state the earth is not warming? Answer... foodstamps. Really, what do they do if they are not sucking off govt money? They are about as useful as HUD counselors or community organizers.

I prefer real data...not manipulated data and real scientists.
 
Quote from jem:

what do climatologists do for a living if they were to state the earth is not warming? Answer... foodstamps. Really, what do they do if they are not sucking off govt money? They are about as useful as HUD counselors or community organizers.

I prefer real data...not manipulated data and real scientists.
More...

You are so clueless about how climatologists are employed that it is not even funny.

So then look at the NASA or NOAA sites. Or are they biased also?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top