Global Warming Is Dead - RIP AGW

Quote from futurecurrents:

You just keep babbling nonsense don't you? Which comic book did you read that in? "Deranged Right Wing Nut Job" ? Oh wait. Watt's Up with that. Same thing. LOL

Try NOAA, NASA the Met Office or any of the other dozens of reliable authoritative sites.

Take your meds today?
More...

You have a real problem with science. You would have been a great medieval flat earth believer. Your stupidity and bone headedness just amazes me. I wouldn't have believed such ignorant fools lived if I hadn't seen your posts over the last few months.

Readers here must just be besides themselves wondering at your ignorance. You are a rare fool, futurecunt.

BTW: <a href=http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/17/to-john-cook-it-isnt-hate-its-pity-pity-for-having-such-a-weak-argument-you-are-forced-to-fabricate-in-epic-proportions/><b>The 97% consensus – a lie of epic proportions<b></a>
 
Quote from pspr:

You have a real problem with science. You would have been a great medieval flat earth believer. Your stupidity and bone headedness just amazes me. I wouldn't have believed such ignorant fools lived if I hadn't seen your posts over the last few months.

Readers here must just be besides themselves wondering at your ignorance. You are a rare fool, futurecunt.

BTW: <a href=http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/17/to-john-cook-it-isnt-hate-its-pity-pity-for-having-such-a-weak-argument-you-are-forced-to-fabricate-in-epic-proportions/><b>The 97% consensus – a lie of epic proportions<b></a>
More...


]You have a real problem with science. You would have been a great medieval flat earth believer. Your stupidity and bone headedness just amazes me. I wouldn't have believed such ignorant fools lived if I hadn't seen your posts over the last few months.

Readers here must just be besides themselves wondering at your ignorance. You are a rare fool, pisspoor.


"A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004). 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way (focused on methods or paleoclimate analysis).

Benny Peiser, a climate contrarian, repeated Oreskes' survey and claimed to have found 34 peer reviewed studies rejecting the consensus. However, an inspection of each of the 34 studies reveals most of them don't reject the consensus at all. The remaining articles in Peiser's list are editorials or letters, not peer-reviewed studies. Peiser has since retracted his criticism of Oreskes survey:

"Only [a] few abstracts explicitly reject or doubt the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) consensus which is why I have publicly withdrawn this point of my critique. [snip] I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact."
 
Quote from futurecurrents:

]You have a real problem with science. You would have been a great medieval flat earth believer. Your stupidity and bone headedness just amazes me. I wouldn't have believed such ignorant fools lived if I hadn't seen your posts over the last few months.

Readers here must just be besides themselves wondering at your ignorance. You are a rare fool, pisspoor.


"A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004). 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way (focused on methods or paleoclimate analysis).

Benny Peiser, a climate contrarian, repeated Oreskes' survey and claimed to have found 34 peer reviewed studies rejecting the consensus. However, an inspection of each of the 34 studies reveals most of them don't reject the consensus at all. The remaining articles in Peiser's list are editorials or letters, not peer-reviewed studies. Peiser has since retracted his criticism of Oreskes survey:

"Only [a] few abstracts explicitly reject or doubt the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) consensus which is why I have publicly withdrawn this point of my critique. [snip] I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact."
More...
Once again you don't know your facts, futurecunt.

There are at least dozens if not thousands of papers debunking man made global warming. Of course you find those on your AGW Alarmists sites.

AGW is dead. Look at a chart of the temperatures for the last 15 years vs CO2. It has minimal if any influence. It has been proven that CO2 does not drive global temperatures. You don't even need to write a paper read a study to recognize this. Any moron can see there is not correlation.

Of course, there is correlation to decadal ocean oscillations (PDO AMO) and Solar output. But some people are even too stupid to see this, such as yourself.

Now go read this article again about how you are wrong about scientific consensus.

<a href=http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/17/to-john-cook-it-isnt-hate-its-pity-pity-for-having-such-a-weak-argument-you-are-forced-to-fabricate-in-epic-proportions/><b>The 97% consensus – a lie of epic proportions<b></a>
 
Global warming is mythical nonsense.

Al Gore has repented, the University of East Anglia has apologised, Dr Murari Lal, a UN climate chief, has admitted that his prediction of Himalayan glacier meltdown by 2035 was false and made purely to place pressure on world leaders.

And the Führer of global warming, Ratendra Pachuari, head of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has admitted that there has been no such warming for almost two decades.

Furthermore, a Russian centre of academic excellence, the Pulkovo Observatory in St Petersburg, now predicts that we could be in for 200 plus years of global cooling. Cooling, folks, not warming.
 
Quote from futurecurrents:

Pisspoor, I'm reminded of the old saying....You can lead a jackass to water....but he's still a jackass. Carrot?
More...

So, you are saying you are a jackass and you can't learn anything new?

We all already know that about you, futurecunt. You're just a one trick jackass. :p
 
Scam Of The Century!

Re: Harper vs. Science, guest column, by Barbara Yaffe, April 17.

Barbara Yaffe's column should have her and her editors fired for gross negligence.

Yes, the science is settled on global warming and the fact is there has been no warming for the past 20 years but a slight decline in global temperatures at a time when carbon emission have skyrocketed globally.

Our media and scientists cannot be trusted to put the truth before the facts, their political agenda (global communism) must not be hindered by the truth.

The fact is the government should be investigating the fraudsters who cost us taxpayers billions and billions of dollars with no end in sight thanks to the Ontario Green Energy collective punishment plan.

The whole global warming scam is just one example how the liberal bully machine works and wow, what a finely tuned machine it is that they are still aggressively selling the global warming scam in the face of overwhelming contradictory facts.

Time to defund the dysfunctional UN that brought us this scam and if Al Gore had any honor, he would give back the Nobel Prize he won. Also wondering what decade our staunch socialist elite limousine academia will quit showing Al's fearmongering movie to the children twice a year for their mandatory public-funded brainwashing?

DAN SMITH, Windsor

http://www.windsorstar.com/Scam+century+Global+warming/8304142/story.html
 
Green Enemies of Humanity, Science & Truth

Among the greatest liars on Earth today is the international organization called Friends of the Earth (FOE). It has engaged in the most scurrilous fear-mongering for decades, along with Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and the World Wildlife Fund, while all the time they pulled in billions in funding.

In May 2012, the Daily Caller noted that “The Congressional Research Service estimates that since 2008 the federal government has spent nearly $70 billion on ‘climate change activities.’” The leading critic in Congress, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) asked at the time, “Which would you rather have? Would you rather spend $4 billion on Air Force base solar panels, or would you rather have 28 new F-22s or 30 F-25s or modernized C-130s?”

“Would you rather have $64.8 billion spent on pointless global warming efforts or would you rather have more funds put toward modernizing our fleet of ships, aircraft and ground vehicles to improve the safety of our troops and help defend the nation against the legitimate threats that we face?’

On May 9, I received an email from Friends of the Earth that repeated all the lies we have heard for years. Painting with a very broad brush that completely ignores the fact that the U.S. climate has always had highs and lows of temperature, FOE complained that “Last year the U.S. experienced record-breaking weather all over the country. But, the nightly news programs on ABC, CBS, and NBC barely talked about what was fueling this extreme weather—climate change.”

What FOE failed to mention was a record that was set in 2012-13; as of May, according to the National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration, the U.S. had its longest stretch in recorded history—2,750 days—without a major hurricane landfall. The many claims of “extreme” weather are classic fear-mongering. I might also add that, according to the National Interagency Fire Center, the number of wildfires is at a ten-year low. Glaciers are not melting and seas are not rising, unless a millimeter or two worries you.

“Climate change” is the replacement name for “global warming.” Climate is measured in centuries. The weather is whatever is happening anywhere in the nation on any given day. Around the world, however, there has been a significant increase in cold weather and many are still waiting for spring to arrive.

Typical of the hyperbole that is representative of the lies we have heard from so-called environmental organizations, FOE fumed that “the nightly news programs at the major broadcast networks have largely ignored what is fueling this extreme weather—climate change.” Citing a Media Matters for America study, FOE noted that “ABC’s nightly news program did only one segment about climate change last year. Meanwhile NBC’s news show did only four and CBS just seven segments to this critical issue.” Perhaps this is because these notably liberal news organizations have concluded it is not a critical issue?

It gets better, FOE was angry, saying “What’s almost worse is that when these networks have covered global warming, they have often treated climate change as a ‘two-sided debate’ rather than what it really is; an issue in which there is overwhelming scientific consensus.” These are people who do not want to have a debate because, based on the facts, they would lose. As for scientific consensus regarding either global warming or climate change, there is NONE. If anything, leading scientists around the world have been debunking global warming now for years.

One of the leading think tanks in the effort to end the global warming hoax has been The Heartland Institute. It has sponsored several international conferences in which scientists and others have offered papers and addressed the topic. I recommend you subscribe to its national monthly, Environmental & Climate News. Its managing editor, James M. Taylor, J.D., provides the latest information on the environmental organizations greatest villain, carbon dioxide (CO2).

Two recent dispatches by Taylor noted in one that “Climate models supporting predictions of rapid global warming during the next century have performed miserably predicting global temperatures during the past two decades”, citing a comparison of computer model predictions and real-world temperatures by climate scientist Roy W. Spencer. In another, Taylor noted that “New data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show atmospheric carbon dioxide levels continue to rise, but global temperatures are not following suit. The new data undercut assertions that atmospheric carbon dioxide is causing a global warming crisis.”

Undismayed by the facts, FOE could only cite the taxpayer-funded PBS News Hour that “devoted 23 segments to covering climate change.” When the President is telling everyone that the climate is the greatest threat to the nation, PBS bureaucrats who know where the money comes from can be depended upon to broadcast his lies.

Ironically, the Wall Street Journal published an opinion by Harrison H. Schmitt and William Happer on the same day the FOE email arrived. It was titled “In Defense of Carbon Dioxide.” Schmitt was an Apollo 17 astronaut and a former U.S. Senator from New Mexico. He is an adjunct professor of engineering at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Happer is a professor of physics at Princeton University and a former director of the office of energy research at the U.S. Department of Energy.

“The cessation of observed global warming for the past decade or so has shown how exaggerated NASA’s and most other computer predictions of human-caused warming have been—and how little correlation warming has with concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide.”

No wonder FOE is upset that even the mainstream media networks no longer want to report on a global warming that does not exist. There’s real science and there’s the fulminations and lies of Friends of the Earth.

http://blog.heartland.org/2013/05/the-green-enemies-of-humanity-science-and-the-truth/
 
Quote of the Week:

<Font size=4>“The influence of mankind on climate is trivially true and numerically insignificant.” ~Richard Lindzen </font>

Richard Lindzen is an American atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lindzen is known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides and ozone photochemistry. He has published more than 200 scientific papers and books.
 
Quote from pspr:

Quote of the Week:

<Font size=4>“The influence of mankind on climate is trivially true and numerically insignificant.” ~Richard Lindzen </font>

Richard Lindzen is an American atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lindzen is known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides and ozone photochemistry. He has published more than 200 scientific papers and books.
More...

I wish we had said that.

Oh we did many times... but the leftist drones deny science and make up their own garbage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top