MLD Woody Posted June 24, 2017 Report Share Posted June 24, 2017 I did read the article. I'm not sure you did. It's saying at worst, 80% of all scientists believe climate change is man made... And then if you actually look at the experts in the field, that number approaches 100%.... That was your leading post on proving man made Climate change false. I just wanted to make sure we're on the same page with that one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 25, 2017 Author Report Share Posted June 25, 2017 no, as an absolute FACT, it is False. I admit, most climate scientists think mmgw is real, sure, maybe. but when it comes to CO2 being a poison, it's laughable. This is from 2011 (keep in mind I've been arguing this for years back to the sheply mmgw immediate crisis days) https://www.nas.org/articles/Estimated_40_Percent_of_Scientists_Doubt_Manmade_Global_Warming Estimated 40 Percent of Scientists Doubt Manmade Global Warmingnas = "National Association of Scholars" I believe it's very accurate to say that global/national politics plays a large part in the pro-mmgw movement. The UN admits it. Questions: Why do most mmgw crisis liberals never want to talk about the millions of acres of the earth's virgin rainforests being destroyed? Answer: because that isn't an impetus for global redistribution of wealth, political victories, control over people's lives.... and they do NOT want to admit CO2 is PLANT FOOD. Why do most mmgw crisis liberals never want to admit that the sun is a major force for the earth's weather patterns? Answer: because that isn't an impetus for global redistribution of wealth, political victories, control over people's lives. Why is it that all mmgw crisis liberals talk about fines, fees, carbon tax trading/buying/selling.... Answer: because mmgw is shown to be about WEALTH. Global redistribution of wealth. Scientists' careers/grants/reputations/ability to get studies published/etc etc etc. Liberals are "control everybody else" freaks. And acceptance of mmgw, despite contrary scientific evidence, means liberals would have control and an open door to taxing every single aspect of Americans' lives. cows farting, any engine running and for how long, thermostat settings, campfires, rv's, utv's, fireplaces, any business activity, any recreational activity... anything. mmgw would be everywhere, about everything. Liberals could fine/fee/license Americans to permanent debt. Look at the EU. Look at the UN. Read up on the UN's Agenda 21. It's about globalized control. over every freaking thing. mmgw is just a way to getting there. "global reason to have global control over all countries and everything those countries do" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canton Dawg Posted June 28, 2017 Report Share Posted June 28, 2017 How about some Fourth of July weekend skiing? This is Mammoth Mountain in California today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted June 28, 2017 Report Share Posted June 28, 2017 Cal tell us wut your dentist thinks of mmgw. Then tell us how sure you are mmgw is fake because the guy that tells u to brush more said so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canton Dawg Posted July 2, 2017 Report Share Posted July 2, 2017 MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen: Believing CO2 controls the climate is pretty close to believing in magic http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/05/01/mit-climate-scientist-dr-richard-lindzen-believing-co2-controls-the-climate-is-pretty-close-to-believing-in-magic/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted July 2, 2017 Author Report Share Posted July 2, 2017 MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen: Believing CO2 controls the climate is pretty close to believing in magic http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/05/01/mit-climate-scientist-dr-richard-lindzen-believing-co2-controls-the-climate-is-pretty-close-to-believing-in-magic/ That is outstanding. Wish I were able to explain all that that precisely, and clearly. Should be interesting to read the upcoming? criticism of pro-mmgw people. " Lindzen: "Doubling CO2 involves a 2% perturbation to this budget. So do minor changes in clouds and other features, and such changes are common. In this complex multifactor system, what is the likelihood of the climate (which, itself, consists in many variables and not just globally averaged temperature anomaly) is controlled by this 2% perturbation in a single variable? Believing this is pretty close to believing in magic. Instead, you are told that it is believing in ‘science.’ Such a claim should be a tip-off that something is amiss. After all, science is a mode of inquiry rather than a belief structure." "The accumulation of false and/or misleading claims is often referred to as the ‘overwhelming evidence’ for forthcoming catastrophe. Without these claims, one might legitimately ask whether there is any evidence at all." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canton Dawg Posted July 2, 2017 Report Share Posted July 2, 2017 That is outstanding. Wish I were able to explain all that that precisely, and clearly. Should be interesting to read the upcoming? criticism of pro-mmgw people. " Lindzen: "Doubling CO2 involves a 2% perturbation to this budget. So do minor changes in clouds and other features, and such changes are common. In this complex multifactor system, what is the likelihood of the climate (which, itself, consists in many variables and not just globally averaged temperature anomaly) is controlled by this 2% perturbation in a single variable? Believing this is pretty close to believing in magic. Instead, you are told that it is believing in science. Such a claim should be a tip-off that something is amiss. After all, science is a mode of inquiry rather than a belief structure." "The accumulation of false and/or misleading claims is often referred to as the overwhelming evidence for forthcoming catastrophe. Without these claims, one might legitimately ask whether there is any evidence at all." Another interesting point Dr Lindzen mentioned, was the planet Mars has much more CO2 in its atmosphere than earth, yet it is much colder than earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted July 2, 2017 Report Share Posted July 2, 2017 We've addressed lindzen before, years ago....he's the guy that grew up in exxon. Excon funded his early research career almost exclusively. He owes them his livelihood. We detailed his profound links to the energy undustry before, this is old hat. But here it is again anyway....http://globalwarmingwatch.blogspot.com/2006/04/exxonmobil-links-to-dr-richard-lindzen.html?m=1 This guy has been shilling against global warming since.......1991. So yeah rolling this guy out every few years as some new mit guy is pure horseshit and previsely why no one clicks on ur guys anti mmgw links. Because they invariably lead back to long refuted theories furnished by precisely this kind of malignant shill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted July 2, 2017 Report Share Posted July 2, 2017 The guy charges $2,500 per day to "consult" for the energy sector Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted July 2, 2017 Report Share Posted July 2, 2017 Another interesting point Dr Lindzen mentioned, was the planet Mars has much more CO2 in its atmosphere than earth, yet it is much colder than earth. And for people ill versed in the dark arts of gnosis seeking through nefarious demonic portals such as darkmaster google.....the above fact is quite striking, potentially devestating to mmgw theorists. Hmmmm, lets see here....aha!!! Following a 1.5 second scrying with me little eye.....i have summoned this demonic scripture... "It is much colder than Earth; but then, it is also farther from the sun. The small, barren planet also has a thin atmosphere that is 95 percent carbon dioxide. Mars's atmosphere is about 100 times thinner than Earth's. Without a "thermal blanket," Mars can't retain any heat energy.Aug 3, 2012" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted July 2, 2017 Report Share Posted July 2, 2017 All hail baphomet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted July 2, 2017 Report Share Posted July 2, 2017 It also has a much thinner atmosphere that can't retain heat... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted July 2, 2017 Report Share Posted July 2, 2017 And yes, we have covered Lindzen many times Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted July 2, 2017 Report Share Posted July 2, 2017 And yes, we have covered Lindzen many times Did u circle ur room 3 times and perform your compulsory mantras to the overlord? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canton Dawg Posted July 2, 2017 Report Share Posted July 2, 2017 Let's see...should I believe an MIT doctor or 2 guys on an MMGW thread? Decisions, decisions. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted July 2, 2017 Report Share Posted July 2, 2017 Let's see...should I believe an MIT doctor or 2 guys on an MMGW thread? Decisions, decisions. . . Dont beleive us. Beleive his own colleagues who wall checked him.... https://www.google.com/amp/s/insideclimatenews.org/news/06032017/climate-change-denial-scientists-richard-lindzen-mit-donald-trump%3Famp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canton Dawg Posted July 2, 2017 Report Share Posted July 2, 2017 Here's a simple question for our 2 MMGW pundits. Looking at the graph below there was a huge warm spell in the 1930's, while CO2 levels were a fraction of what they are today. How did this happen if there wasn't much CO2 in the atmosphere? Explain this to me please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted July 2, 2017 Report Share Posted July 2, 2017 Any source for your chart? Any link? Anything at all? Give me that and I'll get back to you. I will give you some "inside info" though. The system that is the climate is affected by more than one variable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted July 2, 2017 Report Share Posted July 2, 2017 Let's see...should I believe an MIT doctor or 2 guys on an MMGW thread? Decisions, decisions. . . Ha. You don't want to go down that route. Remember, virtually all experts in the field disagree with you. Virtually every reputable scientific organization in the world disagrees with you. The best you can find are people that are in some way tied to the oil industry or conservatives almost every single time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted July 2, 2017 Report Share Posted July 2, 2017 Here's a simple question for our 2 MMGW pundits. Looking at the graph below there was a huge warm spell in the 1930's, while CO2 levels were a fraction of what they are today. How did this happen if there wasn't much CO2 in the atmosphere? Explain this to me please. IMG_0107.JPG Neither woody nor i are climate scientists, but i have a hunch....a wild hair hair if u will. And that wild hair is tellin me theres probably sonewhere on the internet where this data is discussed and/or dismissed by actual cunts in the climate field. Your assertion is almost like, ok woody ok clev....answer me this or the theory of mmgw falls apart and you two cunts are to blame. Entirely. Al gore will put a hit out on us for our failure. Cmon dude, ur on a board full of rubbish wankers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted July 2, 2017 Author Report Share Posted July 2, 2017 the reason so many "science orgs" support mmgw, is because that is where the money is, and many of their liberal "scientists" are. http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/climate-change-2/ http://www.greenclimate.fund/home http://www.unfoundation.org/what-we-do/issues/energy-and-climate/ https://thinkprogress.org/500-million-to-gcf-306414ccc909 https://www.iied.org/iied-un-climate-change-conference-cop21 Designing REDD+ to promote sustainable development and reduce poverty Beyond loans: instruments to ensure the poor access climate and development finance COP21 side event discusses how to unlock climate finance for developing countries Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted July 2, 2017 Author Report Share Posted July 2, 2017 redistribution of wealth, and gigantic funding for mmgw "studies"...that support...mmgw. bought and paid for UN redistribution of wealth fiasco. and that's a fact, jack. another fact: the phoney mmgw fraud is also a matter of attempted global control. like the EU. UN. Global Climate accord, etc. Don't believe me? Check it out: from the global control manipulator..... George Soros http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/22/george-soros-al-gores-sugar-daddy/ http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/28/george-soros-gave-36m-groups-behind-peoples-climat/ more big money nonsense: https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/24945-fake-news-of-polar-bears-dying-from-global-warming-exposed-again https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/08/26/soross_campaign_of_global_chaos_131622.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canton Dawg Posted July 2, 2017 Report Share Posted July 2, 2017 Any source for your chart? Any link? Anything at all? Give me that and I'll get back to you. It could've been:Weathernation Weatherbell Climate Change Joe Bastardi Dr Ryan Maue I got it from one of those places (I don't recall which one). Before you dismiss any of those, keep in mind they get those charts from NOAA or NASA. I will give you some "inside info" though. The system that is the climate is affected by more than one variable. So maybe there's hope for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canton Dawg Posted July 2, 2017 Report Share Posted July 2, 2017 Neither woody nor i are climate scientists, but i have a hunch....a wild hair hair if u will. And that wild hair is tellin me theres probably sonewhere on the internet where this data is discussed and/or dismissed by actual cunts in the climate field. Your assertion is almost like, ok woody ok clev....answer me this or the theory of mmgw falls apart and you two cunts are to blame. Entirely. Al gore will put a hit out on us for our failure. Cmon dude, ur on a board full of rubbish wankers OK, so you can't answer my question either...gotcha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canton Dawg Posted July 2, 2017 Report Share Posted July 2, 2017 Ha. You don't want to go down that route. Remember, virtually all experts in the field disagree with you. Virtually every reputable scientific organization THAT RECEIVES GOVERNMENT GRANTS in the world disagrees with you. The best you can find are people that are in some way tied to the oil industry or conservatives almost every single time.fyp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canton Dawg Posted July 2, 2017 Report Share Posted July 2, 2017 I've got to plan my snow skiing trip...in California...in August! Long Live Global Warming!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted July 2, 2017 Report Share Posted July 2, 2017 OK, so you can't answer my question either...gotcha. Because im not a climate scientist. What dont u undrstand? I can post a bunch of shit you dont understand that u cant answer on ur own......so? What would that prove? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted July 2, 2017 Report Share Posted July 2, 2017 Lets put our rational caps on this sunday afternoon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted July 2, 2017 Report Share Posted July 2, 2017 Oy yes, another classic rebuttal. Sure, the one guy I posted has ties to the oil industry, BUT EVERY OTHER SCIENTIST EVER IS A BIASED LIBERAL THAT JUST OBEYS THE LIBERAL GOVERNMENT AHHH. yep. Every scientist every doesn't count now. See, they can play this game too! That's exactly the same thing as proving one individual has ties to the oil industry m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted July 2, 2017 Report Share Posted July 2, 2017 Throwing around data that you can't even source, basing a question on it, then claiming victory because it wasn't answered is pretty ridiculous. Source your data, or it is pointless in this debate. Based on the title, that data is only looking at US temp. Which, hint hint, is a very small portion of the entire world. Another classic on this board: 1) One place does not equal the whole planet 2) Multiple freaking variables Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.