d2d
New Fish
https://youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JX6nDrqUKKA
But Up-Chuck Todd on Meet the Depressed said he can't win...
But Up-Chuck Todd on Meet the Depressed said he can't win...
Last edited:
Ted Cruz SCHOOLS journalist on CLIMATE CHANGE...
- Thread starter d2d
- Start date
sarktastic
New Fish
did Todd say the GOP was blowing it with Cruz?
allpurpleallgold
New Fish
Government control of the energy sector...and every aspect of our lives. He's a dumb fuck but he's good.
The right needs to chill with the whole well scientists in the past said that so we can't trust this now. Going to walk into a well they say the earth is round now but they use to say it was flat so who really knows zinger eventually.
The right needs to chill with the whole well scientists in the past said that so we can't trust this now. Going to walk into a well they say the earth is round now but they use to say it was flat so who really knows zinger eventually.
HoustonHusky
New Fish
2001400ex vs. reality:
HoustonHusky
New Fish
The 90% is a lie to...like pretty much most everything you say around here. Go look at the "online" survey" that generated the number...its been discredited to the T. (Notice as well you don't dispute the graph I posted...its a simple fact).
Then again, an on-line survey around here rating your intelligence might be pretty accurate. Maybe I should reconsider.
Lemming.
Then again, an on-line survey around here rating your intelligence might be pretty accurate. Maybe I should reconsider.
Lemming.
Last edited:
2001400ex
New Fish
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists'_views_on_climate_change
There's multiple surveys that show the same. Death even posted a survey showing 80% plus of the meteorologists say humans at least partially to blame for a warmer climate.
But you and death are way smarter than our climate scientists and meteorologists. And study this for a living. And I'm the lemming.
Fuck you guys are stupid.
Last edited:
d2d
New Fish
Did you graduate from high school?
FORBES MAGAZINE
A recent survey of American Meteorological Society members shows meteorologists are skeptical that humans are causing a global warming crisis. The survey confirms what many scientists have been reporting for years; the politically focused bureaucratic leadership of many science organizations is severely out of touch with the scientists themselves regarding global warming issues.
Other questions solidified the meteorologists’ skepticism about humans creating a global warming crisis. For example, among those meteorologists who believe global warming is happening, only a modest majority (59%) believe humans are the primary cause. More importantly, only 38% of respondents who believe global warming is occurring say it will be very harmful during the next 100 years.
Other questions solidified the meteorologists’ skepticism about humans creating a global warming crisis. For example, among those meteorologists who believe global warming is happening, only a modest majority (59%) believe humans are the primary cause. More importantly, only 38% of respondents who believe global warming is occurring say it will be very harmful during the next 100 years.
In another line of survey questions, 53% of respondents believe there is conflict among AMS members regarding the topic of global warming. Only 33% believe there is no conflict. Another 15% were not sure. These results provide strong refutation to the assertion that “the debate is over.”
Overall, the survey of AMS scientists paints a very different picture than the official AMS Information Statement on Climate Change. Drafted by the AMS bureaucracy, the Information Statement leaves readers with the impression that AMS meteorologists have few doubts about humans creating a global warming crisis. The Information Statement indicates quite strongly that humans are the primary driver of global temperatures and the consequences are and will continue to be quite severe. Compare the bureaucracy’s Information Statement with the survey results of the AMS scientists themselves.
In contrast to the AMS survey, where all respondents are AMS meteorologists, a majority have Ph.D.s and fully 80% have a Ph.D. or Masters Degree, position statements by organizational bureaucracies carry little scientific weight. For example, a position statement recently published by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and frequently cited as the “definitive” indication of scientific consensus on global warming was authored by a mere 23 persons. Of those 23 persons, only five had Ph.D.s in a field closely related to climate science, an equal number (5) were staffers for environmental activist groups, two were politicians, one was the EPA general counsel [an attorney] under the Clinton administration and 19 of the 23 had already spoken out on behalf of global warming alarmist prior to being chosen for the panel. Clearly the scientific weight of the NAS statement pales in comparison to the AMS meteorologist survey.
Last edited:
HoustonHusky
New Fish
You are the lemming. Online surveys are now fact...surveys where 30% respond and the questions are ambiguous and leading at best are now "fact". There are surveys were meteorologists are split on whether they "believe" (the appropriate term for the religion it is)...yet you ignore those because they disagree with your preconceived notion. And the reality of it is who fucking cares what a bunch of people that either don't study it in detail or even who are fully vested by making a living advocating one side think.
Compare the actual fucking data to the models that "prove" GW. The models are fundamentally based on a greenhouse mechanism and were built to match the warming data in the 80s and 90s (and before) when the CO2 level went from ~338ppm in 1980 to ~365ppm in 1998 and the temperature data says the globe warmed 0.3 degrees or whatever the number is. Apply that logic to the next set of data...specifically the last 18 years when CO2 levels went from 365ppm to now 400ppm and low and behold the temperature hasn't statistically moved. I don't need my graduate science degree (hey...I can call myself a scientist too...how come I've never gotten a survey) to know after that simple fact saying the models are correct (when they don't match shit) or that increased CO2 levels is the direct driving force behind global warming is Fucking Stupid.
And yes, you are a lemming to the nth degree...as you prove it here daily. You have a point of view that is regurgitated from others without thought, and you can't even argue it...you gargle talking points (90% surveys being a good example) without having a single clue about the underlying concepts or issues. You are lecturing me on what "scientists" think without having the least bit of understand of absolutely any of the science and having no clue as to my science background.
Keep gargling lemming.
Compare the actual fucking data to the models that "prove" GW. The models are fundamentally based on a greenhouse mechanism and were built to match the warming data in the 80s and 90s (and before) when the CO2 level went from ~338ppm in 1980 to ~365ppm in 1998 and the temperature data says the globe warmed 0.3 degrees or whatever the number is. Apply that logic to the next set of data...specifically the last 18 years when CO2 levels went from 365ppm to now 400ppm and low and behold the temperature hasn't statistically moved. I don't need my graduate science degree (hey...I can call myself a scientist too...how come I've never gotten a survey) to know after that simple fact saying the models are correct (when they don't match shit) or that increased CO2 levels is the direct driving force behind global warming is Fucking Stupid.
And yes, you are a lemming to the nth degree...as you prove it here daily. You have a point of view that is regurgitated from others without thought, and you can't even argue it...you gargle talking points (90% surveys being a good example) without having a single clue about the underlying concepts or issues. You are lecturing me on what "scientists" think without having the least bit of understand of absolutely any of the science and having no clue as to my science background.
Keep gargling lemming.
Here, I'll save you 4 hours of spamming the board with lies.
I like to parse 40 years out of 14 billion and call it a trend, I do that.
I distinctly recall sitting in class at the UW in the late 90s and being told the greatest threat to our climate is another ice age. Would you like to discuss the subsequent 15 year 'trend' since as proofs? Please advise.
d2d
New Fish
Human beings occupy only 1% of the earth's surface. Earth is almost 80% salt water. Of the 20% that is dry land, much of it uninhabitable desert. One entire continent, Antarctica, is completely void of humans.
I've sailed across the Pacific Ocean AND DIDN'T SEE A SINGLE FUCKING HUMAN BEING!
Humans need fresh water to survive. The vast majority live within 100 miles of the coastline, AND next to a river or other source of fresh water.
The nakedly conceited idea that humans can be THE major factor affecting worldwide global warming OR cooling should be astonishing to any independent thinking person.
This map clearly shows that the vast majority of the world's human population live in China and India, both of which are exempt from the Kyoto Protocol. Another CONTINENT which is almost void of humans, Australia, HAS A CARBON TAX? Eat shit and die, Honda.
I've sailed across the Pacific Ocean AND DIDN'T SEE A SINGLE FUCKING HUMAN BEING!
Humans need fresh water to survive. The vast majority live within 100 miles of the coastline, AND next to a river or other source of fresh water.
The nakedly conceited idea that humans can be THE major factor affecting worldwide global warming OR cooling should be astonishing to any independent thinking person.
This map clearly shows that the vast majority of the world's human population live in China and India, both of which are exempt from the Kyoto Protocol. Another CONTINENT which is almost void of humans, Australia, HAS A CARBON TAX? Eat shit and die, Honda.
Code:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4a6YdNmK77k&feature=player_detailpage
Last edited:
sarktastic
New Fish
as annoying as he may be on occasion, the man does have a point that passes the reasonable man theory.
d2d
New Fish
Congresswoman Claims Climate Change Will Turn Women Into Prostitutes:
“Women will disproportionately face harmful impacts from climate change,” Lee’s Congressional resolution reads. It continues claiming, “Food insecure women with limited socioeconomic resources may be vulnerable to situations such as sex work, transactional sex, and early marriage that put them at risk for HIV, STIs, unplanned pregnancy, and poor reproductive health.”
She must be facebook friends with Honda?
breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/26/congresswoman-claims-climate-change-will-turn-women-into-prostitutes/
“Women will disproportionately face harmful impacts from climate change,” Lee’s Congressional resolution reads. It continues claiming, “Food insecure women with limited socioeconomic resources may be vulnerable to situations such as sex work, transactional sex, and early marriage that put them at risk for HIV, STIs, unplanned pregnancy, and poor reproductive health.”
She must be facebook friends with Honda?
breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/26/congresswoman-claims-climate-change-will-turn-women-into-prostitutes/
Last edited: