Jump to content

Global warming err Climate change HOAX


Recommended Posts

Heh........................

 

 

 

Screen-Shot-2015-04-29-at-4.08.26-PM.png

 

The Gatorman Fallacy has reached the highest levels of government. We are so !@#$ed.

 

The truly amazing thing is that the White House still thinks a social media presence is constructive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 7.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

From your link:

 

“Science and religion are not at odds on climate change. Indeed, they are fully aligned. Together, we must clearly communicate that the science of climate change is deep, sound and not in doubt,” Ban said.

Turkson called on leaders of all faiths to be good role models. “Think of the positive message it would send for churches, mosques, synagogues, and temples all over the world to become carbon neutral,” he said. “At a time like this, the world is looking to faith leaders for guidance. This is why Pope Francis has chosen to issue an encyclical on protecting the environment at this unique moment in time.”

The Protect the Earth, Dignify Humanity meeting has brought about a rare meeting of minds between scientists and religious officials on climate change, even if they frame their arguments in different ways.

Teresa Berger, a professor at the Yale Divinity School, said she believed the encyclical would have an overarching theological vision – one of “a God-sustained universe, anchored in a theology of creation as articulated in the biblical witness. And based on this, Pope Francis will probably not mince words, but note as evil, for example, the sin of exploiting the Earth.”

So, science and religion have now merged? Or is it Global Warming Climate Change religion has found itself a new partner? I am as environmentally responsible as anyone. I recycle, don't toss things out the window of my Honda Prius and revel in the success of the Great Lakes Initiative. Latecomers to environmentalism have come up with something called "carbon credits" and I'm having a tough time understanding how they do anything to improve the environment. Can anyone explain?

Edited by 3rdnlng
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From your link:

 

“Science and religion are not at odds on climate change. Indeed, they are fully aligned. Together, we must clearly communicate that the science of climate change is deep, sound and not in doubt,” Ban said.

Turkson called on leaders of all faiths to be good role models. “Think of the positive message it would send for churches, mosques, synagogues, and temples all over the world to become carbon neutral,” he said. “At a time like this, the world is looking to faith leaders for guidance. This is why Pope Francis has chosen to issue an encyclical on protecting the environment at this unique moment in time.”

The Protect the Earth, Dignify Humanity meeting has brought about a rare meeting of minds between scientists and religious officials on climate change, even if they frame their arguments in different ways.

Teresa Berger, a professor at the Yale Divinity School, said she believed the encyclical would have an overarching theological vision – one of “a God-sustained universe, anchored in a theology of creation as articulated in the biblical witness. And based on this, Pope Francis will probably not mince words, but note as evil, for example, the sin of exploiting the Earth.”

So, science and religion have now merged? Or is it Global Warming Climate Change religion has found itself a new partner? I am as environmentally responsible as anyone. I recycle, don't toss things out the window of my Honda Prius and revel in the success of the Great Lakes Initiative. Latecomers to environmentalism have come up with something called "carbon credits" and I'm having a tough time understanding how they do anything to improve the environment. Can anyone explain?

What in the Sam hell is this assclownery? All this time, and they still think their error lies in "messaging" and "communication", and not in God Damned F'ing data? (How'd you like that, Bible thumpers?) No, clowns, your error lies in being unable to rationally repsond to honest, reasoned, scientific criticism of your theory.

 

This "communication" crap is a cop out. It's also designed to marginalize contrary evidence, because they think it allows them to avoid having to answer for their failed models and predictions. Does anyone here think that my demand for explanation of the now-18 year pause, or ANY evidence of the hastily construed speculations to shore up the AGW theory.....is a result of, or even has the slightest bit to do wtih, them ineffectually communicating their beliefs?

 

Now they are co-opting religion? Religion? Religion! Of all things, F'ing religion. <_< W....T....F? These are the same bags that will attack religion and belief in God every single way possible, on every issue possibe. Unless...if religion can be co-opted to suit their wack-job agenda, apparently. :rolleyes:

 

Intellectual honesty. Where the F is it? Even the "luke warmers" like GreggyT have to start asking themselves: "Is there anything these people won't say?" I mean: GreggyT, when is enough enough for you? Do you have a limit or a line, that these people can cross, at which point you will call BS on them?

 

Or any of you that have an inkling that disaster is around the corner: where's your line? What do the Environtologists have to say for you to finally say "alright, hmm, you know, these guys might very well be full of *****"?

Edited by OCinBuffalo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What in the Sam hell is this assclownery? All this time, and they still think their error lies in "messaging" and "communication", and not in God Damned F'ing data? (How'd you like that, Bible thumpers?) No, clowns, your error lies in being unable to rationally repsond to honest, reasoned, scientific criticism of your theory.

 

This "communication" crap is a cop out. It's also designed to marginalize contrary evidence, because they think it allows them to avoid having to answer for their failed models and predictions. Does anyone here think that my demand for explanation of the now-18 year pause, or ANY evidence of the hastily construed speculations to shore up the AGW theory.....is a result of, or even has the slightest bit to do wtih, them ineffectually communicating their beliefs?

 

Now they are co-opting religion? Religion? Religion! Of all things, F'ing religion. <_< W....T....F? These are the same bags that will attack religion and belief in God every single way possible, on every issue possibe. Unless...if religion can be co-opted to suit their wack-job agenda, apparently. :rolleyes:

 

Intellectual honesty. Where the F is it? Even the "luke warmers" like GreggyT have to start asking themselves: "Is there anything these people won't say?" I mean: GreggyT, when is enough enough for you? Do you have a limit or a line, that these people can cross, at which point you will call BS on them?

 

Or any of you that have an inkling that disaster is around the corner: where's your line? What do the Environtologists have to say for you to finally say "alright, hmm, you know, these guys might very well be full of *****"?

:worthy: Well said sir,damn well said

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WELL, I GUESS IT’S TOO LATE NOW. MIGHT AS WELL BUY THAT SUV I’VE HAD MY EYE ON:

 

Eight Years Ago Today: UN Scientists Say We Have Only Eight Years Left To Stop Global Warming.

 

 

 

 

 

The Journal of Climate has a study coming out shortly, conducted by the Scripps Institute of Oceanography and financed by the Koch brothers U.S. government, that concludes the panic over ice loss has been exaggerated, and that “tipping point” scenarios are not well founded scientifically. The full article, “How Climate Model Complexity Influences Sea Ice Stability,” is behind a paywall, and the abstract is typically abstract, but there’s no mistaking the meaning of this part of it:

 

We find that the stability of the ice cover vastly increases with the inclusion of spatial communication via meridional heat transport or a seasonal cycle in solar forcing, being most stable when both are included. If the associated parameters are set to values that correspond to the current climate,
the ice retreat is reversible and there is no instability when the climate is warmed
. The two parameters have to be reduced by at least a factor of 3 for instability to occur. This implies that
the sea ice cover may be substantially more stable than has been suggested in previous idealized modeling studies
. (Emphasis added.)

 

 

The “meridional heat transport” refers to decade-scale oscillations in ocean currents, and “solar forcing” means variations in the sun—long factors that climate skeptics have argued explain much of the observed changes in arctic ice. Nice to see the “consensus” science community coming around on yet another key point.

 

Here’s the complete Scripps press release about the study.

 

 

 

 

.

Edited by B-Man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

WELL, I GUESS ITS TOO LATE NOW. MIGHT AS WELL BUY THAT SUV IVE HAD MY EYE ON

 

In all seriousness, I hope you are joking about the SUV you have an eye on. Screw the enviro/Global Warming... That shouldn't play a part in anything, IMO

 

Always go against the grain. Fuel is cheap, why would you buy an SUV when everybody else is and they are paying a premium for the vehicle. Americans are just plain dumb.

 

Get the vehicle that sips fuel, get the SUV when they can't give them away. The money that you save on the vehicle will cover the difference with the fuel. SUV's are once again flying off the lots, and they are charging a premium! You can get steals on a economy vehicle and the fuel is cheap. Win-win. Who the heck cares about the enviro?

 

And when fuel goes back up again, you are set.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In all seriousness, I hope you are joking about the SUV you have an eye on. Screw the enviro/Global Warming... That shouldn't play a part in anything, IMO

 

Always go against the grain. Fuel is cheap, why would you buy an SUV when everybody else is and they are paying a premium for the vehicle. Americans are just plain dumb.

 

Get the vehicle that sips fuel, get the SUV when they can't give them away. The money that you save on the vehicle will cover the difference with the fuel. SUV's are once again flying off the lots, and they are charging a premium! You can get steals on a economy vehicle and the fuel is cheap. Win-win. Who the heck cares about the enviro?

 

And when fuel goes back up again, you are set.

I think it's called consumers buying what they want because they earned the right to when they went to work and earned a paycheck.Isn't it a shame that liberals cant just stop people and make them conform?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then why does congress need the USCG to make a plan through 2050?

 

http://www.maritime-executive.com/features/mission-impossible-a-new-us-icebreaker

 

"Congress requires a written plan to maintain icebreaking services through 2024. Congress also requires a document outlining Coast Guard icebreaking strategies though 2050."

 

 

Semper Paratus!

 

 

;-P

I think it's called consumers buying what they want because they earned the right to when they went to work and earned a paycheck.Isn't it a shame that liberals cant just stop people and make them conform?

It has nothing to do w/making people conform. It's about imparting a little wisdom on people so they don't make the same mistakes over and over... To each their own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Semper Paratus!

 

 

;-P

 

It has nothing to do w/making people conform. It's about imparting a little wisdom on people so they don't make the same mistakes over and over... To each their own.

 

So the Obamacare mandate was about imparting a little wisdom?

Maybe the Carbon Tax should be voluntary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Semper Paratus!

 

 

;-P

 

It has nothing to do w/making people conform. It's about imparting a little wisdom on people so they don't make the same mistakes over and over... To each their own.

Um, show me the current government policy/program, besides gay marriage, on which this premise is predicated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:worthy: Well said sir,damn well said

I appreciate the sentiment. But, that's all it is. Buddy, we've been doing this intellectually for years. I'm not saying you can't play with the rest of us. I don't know you, perhaps you can. What I am saying is that it took us a lot of hard, "math and science", work to get this topic from the political hand job it was on this board, to the intellectual discussion it must be.

 

As soon as the clowns decided to go full retard on this, by invoking the Holocaust with the term "denier"? Crushing that became a moral, never mind intellctual, imperative for us.

 

True science doesn't require canards. Nor does it require political support. The facts that weed is illegal, and that Tesla got screwed, validate that point beyond contestation == if the antagonists in either of these histories, Hurst and Edison respectively, were in the right, they wouldn't have behaved as they did.

 

What we are seeing here is a new form of Hurst and Edison bad behavior. It must be stopped, and we can: we have the Internet. What if Tesla had Internet access? :lol:

Edited by OCinBuffalo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...