Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says[W:46]

BmanMcfly said:

1- 1988 predictions started in 1960?!?

2- that shows about 10 years of that no warming, while co2 has been increasing the whole time (matching the co2 used in scenario A)

3- let's ignore the fact that scenario A starts .2 degrees above observation

4 - let's ignore that scenario B is around .2 degrees above observation, except for a time where it dropped down

5- even part C divergence is concealed by method of adjusting the scale in such a way that it can be called close.., but since co2 is at scenario A levels, just goes to show how far off these people can be and still claim to be correct.

I know I know, you are an apologist for this kind of corruption.

Click to expand...

Whoops. Sorry. Wrong graph- I had fat fingers.

I won't go into your blabbering and incoherent ranting about this, and I'll post the graph I meant to post.

Threegoofs said:

Click to expand...

None of that proves anything, and I highly doubt that graph is even accurate.

What you're doing is taking 50 years of climate data and drawing a conclusion out of it all the while ignoring the fact that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and has hosted life for the last 3.5 billion years...

Do you not see the problem cherry picking bull****??

So what if the Earth is warming???? we are after all coming off a ****ing ice age...

To make it even more strange the polar ice caps are growing - which means we could potentially be going back into an ice age.

I mean you do realize where Chicago is now there was a mile high sheet of ice? I mean it only carved out the Great Lakes and moved gigantic bolders thousands of miles. Every time you see a huge bolder in the middle of no where did you ever stop to think how that rock got there? do you think it just grew there like grass or a flower?

Go up to Devils Lake Wisconsin for more proof of what I'm talking about.

Mr.Nick said:

What a better way to control, regulate and tax than to scare people with a naturally occurring event...

These con-men make it seem as if the climate has never changed and that "climate change" is some new phenomena caused my humans.. To make these crackpots seem even more ridiculous go back to the 70's and 80's and read some of their climate predictions. Depending on which ones you read we're either a) supposed to be living in "snowball Earth II" or b) the Eastern and Western seaboard should completely be covered under several feet of water by now.

To make matters worse these so called "environment scientists" have been caught fudging, manipulating and outright denying data that contradicts their "global catastrophe" scare tactics...

These ****ing assholes aren't scientists they perpetuaters of an agenda that has nothing to do with science and everything to do with politics and $$$$$$$...

Click to expand...

facts notwithstanding....Of course.

Here is news for everyone - meteorologists cant even predict the weather 7 days in advance - yet we're supposed to listen to a bunch of politically motivated "scientists" predict our climate 10.20,30 years down the road??? Oh and lets not forget their "predictions" based on models they manifested to suit their "theories" have ALL been wrong anyways...

These AGW nuts are treating these government paid "scientists" as Biblical Messiahs preaching the Rapture.

Scientists and engineers absolutely hate to be wrong. I mean they HATE to be wrong. Admitting an error, especially to us peasants, is akin to being burned at the stake in gasoline. It ain't gonna happen, especially with all the personal gain that's in it for them.

They will take these hopeful theories on AGW to their freaking graves. Never will they admit they're wrong til the day they die.

And Democrats don't give a crap whether it's right or wrong. It's a regal new way to siphon money and power from its pesky citizenry.

Here is what I don't understand. You guys love science when it gives you the here and now, but when it apparently is somehow ruining your day you don't want to hear about it. Climate change denying to me is like denying the idea that TVs are flat now and we can view the internet on our phones. I wonder if kerosene industry tried to deny the idea of electricity and light bulbs when they came about just because it would make things harder on them? Maybe people got mad when their taxes went up to put light posts up? Who knows? I do know though the quicker we incentivize making things cleaner for the naysayers, the quicker this problem will begin to be fixed.

smb said:

facts notwithstanding....Of course.

Click to expand...

You don't have any facts - what you have are a bunch of bull**** models simulated by computers programed with data - data which exists only to show one hypothesis.

This snake oil salesmen aren't "scientists" they're alarmists paid for via grant by the federal government to scare people into forking over more money, then allowing the government to regulate the **** out of all business and industry.....

It seems like a good plan for a communist or communist sympathizers -- tell everyone they're going to die unless we allow government to regulate everything and tax the **** out of people.......

Besides, just out of curiosity how the hell does regulating the **** out of every industry and taxing the **** out of people help "climate change?"

Furthermore in what universe do you actually believe you can control climate anyways???? what are you going to do stop volcanoes, tornadoes, hurricanes???? - NO you're not and you can't and quite frankly you - and you people - are doing more damage to the environment by hindering the Earths natural process than man has since the industrial revolution.

Oh and I have evidence -- go take a look at all these AGW alarmists predictions from the 70's and 80's - that pretty much sums up how full of **** and political they actually are.. Also, why you're at it why don't you go investigate who these "scientists" actually are and what organizations they belong to. They're partisan treehuggers rejected by green peace for being too ****ing radical.

Oh and if you want more evidence - we're not living in ****ing water world like all these asshat pseudo-scientists predicted in the 80's.

The only reason why you fall for this **** is because it is part of your political party culture - the idea that humanity is evil.

JohnWOlin said:

Here is what I don't understand. You guys love science when it gives you the here and now, but when it apparently is somehow ruining your day you don't want to hear about it. Climate change denying to me is like denying the idea that TVs are flat now and we can view the internet on our phones. I wonder if kerosene industry tried to deny the idea of electricity and light bulbs when they came about just because it would make things harder on them? Maybe people got mad when their taxes went up to put light posts up? Who knows? I do know though the quicker we incentivize making things cleaner for the naysayers, the quicker this problem will begin to be fixed.

Click to expand...

There is a difference between "climate change" and denying that humans play a role in "climate change" however it seems like progressives love to mash the two together and paint anyone who disagrees with AGW (anthropological global warming) as a "climate change" denier....

This just goes to show how full of **** the AGW believers are - they even have to lie to perpetuate this bull****.

Here is a shocker to all - the climate - at least a climate that can breed life has been changing for the past 3.5 billion years.

Mr.Nick said:

There is a difference between "climate change" and denying that humans play a role in "climate change" however it seems like progressives love to mash the two together and paint anyone who disagrees with AGW (anthropological global warming) as a "climate change" denier....

This just goes to show how full of **** the AGW believers are - they even have to lie to perpetuate this bull****.

Here is a shocker to all - the climate - at least a climate that can breed life has been changing for the past 3.5 billion years.

Click to expand...

yes, we all know that change, but not what we're talking about when referring to someone as a denier.

Erod said:

Scientists and engineers absolutely hate to be wrong. I mean they HATE to be wrong. Admitting an error, especially to us peasants, is akin to being burned at the stake in gasoline. It ain't gonna happen, especially with all the personal gain that's in it for them.

They will take these hopeful theories on AGW to their freaking graves. Never will they admit they're wrong til the day they die.

And Democrats don't give a crap whether it's right or wrong. It's a regal new way to siphon money and power from its pesky citizenry.

Click to expand...

Of course they hate to be wrong - I have several that are aunts and uncles and they're the most narrow minded morons I know. They also hate debating me on this issue because I destroy them every time.

This AGW bull**** is all about politics and money...

Half of these alarmists wouldn't even have jobs if they weren't shoving AGW down the publics throats..

Man cannot cause global warming - global warming or "climate change" (it can go in either direction) - that is a fact, however it is certainly a good way to scare people into an Orwellian society...

The funny part is that their computer models have be so drastically wrong - yet people still listen....

Like I said in a previous post - this has little to do about environment and everything to do about politics and ideals.

I think it was Rahm Emmanuel who said: "never waste a tragedy" - well that applies here - instead of a tragedy we have hysteria.

Boo Radley said:

yes, we all know that change, but not what we're talking about when referring to someone as a denier.

Click to expand...

No one denies the climate doesn't change - ZERO - NO ONE...

"Do you believe in climate change" is a trick question because what progressives imply is AGW and every non-progressive knows this.

Mr.Nick said:

There is a difference between "climate change" and denying that humans play a role in "climate change" however it seems like progressives love to mash the two together and paint anyone who disagrees with AGW (anthropological global warming) as a "climate change" denier....

This just goes to show how full of **** the AGW believers are - they even have to lie to perpetuate this bull****.

Here is a shocker to all - the climate - at least a climate that can breed life has been changing for the past 3.5 billion years.

Click to expand...

Let's take out of the equation the effects on the planet. **** the planet. Honestly, I won't be around when the effects really come through and it isn't just crazy weather so let's look at what we can do that benefits you and I right now. We aren't so different. What if we had roads that had solar panels in them that did a bunch of badass ****?



What if you powered your car off of the badass solar roads? What it's like to own a Tesla Model S - A cartoonist's review of his magical space car - The Oatmeal

So just think, you would have everything better, cheaper in the long run and you would be LIVING IN THE ****ING FUTURE. How can you not get behind that?

Re: Climate change is here and action needed now, new White House report says

It's us human beings, who destroy the world that we live in. But when we face danger then we say very big words....

Mr.Nick said:

No one denies the climate doesn't change - ZERO - NO ONE...

"Do you believe in climate change" is a trick question because what progressives imply is AGW and every non-progressive knows this.

Click to expand...

Again, context matters. When talking about climate change you know we're talking about AGW. No one I know is confused by this.

Mr.Nick said:

None of that proves anything, and I highly doubt that graph is even accurate.

What you're doing is taking 50 years of climate data and drawing a conclusion out of it all the while ignoring the fact that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and has hosted life for the last 3.5 billion years...

Do you not see the problem cherry picking bull****??

So what if the Earth is warming???? we are after all coming off a ****ing ice age...

To make it even more strange the polar ice caps are growing - which means we could potentially be going back into an ice age.

I mean you do realize where Chicago is now there was a mile high sheet of ice? I mean it only carved out the Great Lakes and moved gigantic bolders thousands of miles. Every time you see a huge bolder in the middle of no where did you ever stop to think how that rock got there? do you think it just grew there like grass or a flower?

Go up to Devils Lake Wisconsin for more proof of what I'm talking about.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the high school geology lesson.

Your grasp of science is quite clear.

Boo Radley said:

Again, context matters. When talking about climate change you know we're talking about AGW. No one I know is confused by this.

Click to expand...

No that is wrong...

If that was fact then use the term AGW.... Oh yeah that is too difficult. First it was "global cooling" then "global warming" yet that didn't pan out so it was "climate change" (kinda like the old parlor trick "heads I win and tails you lose") and now people are supposed to make assumptions because progressives can't be specific - yet you demand specific answers?

Give me a ****ing break...

I know the progressive game and when someone asks me if I believe in "climate change" I say I don't believe in anthropogenic climate change unless someone blows off an entire arsenal of nuclear weapons.

Dare they ask why - I will give them a half hour lecture as to why.

RE: Solar roadways
In spit of what I think is a poor presentation style, it is a good idea,
and represents the thinking outside the box that will be necessary,
for us to move to the next level.
This combined with man made hydrocarbon fuels, could bridge the gap
to whatever comes after heat engines.

The best part of all of this is that one of these days a mega volcano will erupt, or a comet or meteor will strike the earth unleashing devastating pollution into our atmosphere that would make the industrial revolution look like someone struck a match.

Of course the scientific community knows that will eventually happen within the next 100 or so years yet acts concerned about alleged "AGW."

Hell, a rupture of a seismic fault line large enough could spew more gas into the atmosphere since humans have since the industrial revolution.

But of course these "save the planet" folks who buy the government bull**** never thought about those forthcoming disasters now did they?

smb said:

Only a fool would suggest that global temperatures are not rising and rising at an excellerating rate.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

Click to expand...

No, WAS. The acceleration has been towards cooling, for approaching 20 years.

Meanwhile co2 is increasing at the same rate.

Mr.Nick said:

No that is wrong...

If that was fact then use the term AGW.... Oh yeah that is too difficult. First it was "global cooling" then "global warming" yet that didn't pan out so it was "climate change" (kinda like the old parlor trick "heads I win and tails you lose") and now people are supposed to make assumptions because progressives can't be specific - yet you demand specific answers?

Give me a ****ing break...

I know the progressive game and when someone asks me if I believe in "climate change" I say I don't believe in anthropogenic climate change unless someone blows off an entire arsenal of nuclear weapons.

Dare they ask why - I will give them a half hour lecture as to why.

Click to expand...

No, that's simply not true. And yes, you will likely get a lecture about how badly you're reading it.

Mr.Nick said:

No that is wrong...

If that was fact then use the term AGW.... Oh yeah that is too difficult. First it was "global cooling" then "global warming" yet that didn't pan out so it was "climate change" (kinda like the old parlor trick "heads I win and tails you lose") and now people are supposed to make assumptions because progressives can't be specific - yet you demand specific answers?

Give me a ****ing break...

I know the progressive game and when someone asks me if I believe in "climate change" I say I don't believe in anthropogenic climate change unless someone blows off an entire arsenal of nuclear weapons.

Dare they ask why - I will give them a half hour lecture as to why.

Click to expand...

Did you ever notice the people who you 'destroy' over the issue generally dont have much to say after you start talking and then end the conversation politely and roll their eyes as they try to quickly get away?

Get clue. You arent really 'destroying' them.

Did you ever notice them talking and then stop abruptly when you walk into the room? Bet that happens a lot.

longview said:

RE: Solar roadways
In spit of what I think is a poor presentation style, it is a good idea,
and represents the thinking outside the box that will be necessary,
for us to move to the next level.
This combined with man made hydrocarbon fuels, could bridge the gap
to whatever comes after heat engines.

Click to expand...

Solar power on a large scale is at best an oxymoron - at worst a waste of money. Solar power is too inefficient and you couldn't move a train if you tried with solar power.

Wind and turbines on the other hand makes way more sense.

Obviously free energy is impossible but wind turbines is the key to the future of energy - that and different forms of friction.

Threegoofs said:

Whoops. Sorry. Wrong graph- I had fat fingers.

I won't go into your blabbering and incoherent ranting about this, and I'll post the graph I meant to post.

Click to expand...

Oh, and this one is less of a lesson in shoddy science?

You won't go into it because you can't... You know what a hypothesis is, you know the ipcc hypothesis, you know the data does not support the hypothesis.

Decadal average temperatures don't prove anything about how that warning relates to co2, which is the key to the entire argument.

Mr.Nick said:

The best part of all of this is that one of these days a mega volcano will erupt, or a comet or meteor will strike the earth unleashing devastating pollution into our atmosphere that would make the industrial revolution look like someone struck a match.

Of course the scientific community knows that will eventually happen within the next 100 or so years yet acts concerned about alleged "AGW."

Hell, a rupture of a seismic fault line large enough could spew more gas into the atmosphere since humans have since the industrial revolution.

But of course these "save the planet" folks who buy the government bull**** never thought about those forthcoming disasters now did they?

Click to expand...

That's a dumb argument. That's like saying "Hell why should I wear a seatbelt I'm gonna die of cancer anyways." Mankind always will find away to fight for the future. Just like X-Files.

BmanMcfly said:

Oh, and this one is less of a lesson in shoddy science?

You won't go into it because you can't... You know what a hypothesis is, you know the ipcc hypothesis, you know the data does not support the hypothesis.

Decadal average temperatures don't prove anything about how that warning relates to co2, which is the key to the entire argument.

Click to expand...

Nice pivot.

I was dismantling your BS point about how the temperature 'paused'. I guess you attribute the increase to your outbursts of hot air over the years.