>>>MOD ALERT<<< It’s Too Cold To Protest Global Warming At Yale

Would it matter to you? Of course not. Wallet meet "ME"! "ME" meet wallet! At the end of the day, that is all some people really care about. They live for the day, and if global warming comes, so be it. Whether we are causing it or not. It just doesn't matter. Thanks for playing. I think you and I understand each other perfectly. It's pointless to continue.

 

You mean I want to keep my money? Oh my god! How dare I or anyone else want that!?

And yeah, it matters to me. So quit making up my motivations for me, especially when I've already given you the reasons why throughout this thread.

 

We can see that.

 

that's the carrot you're chasing: pay no tax, have more money and weaker government

in reality, billionaire corporatists like the koch brothers, are campaigning to lower worker's pay & make taxes more regressive

here's a video demonstrating that, so let's see if you do what the kochs want you to do

[video=youtube;KrFv3eSYNRw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrFv3eSYNRw[/video]

notice how well you spoke your lines, though

let me explain it to you, the cartoon is a depiction of reality

corporatists are seeking to play you just like antebellum, plantation owners did

with poor, white sharecroppers, by pitting them against slaves, to keep them occupied and ignorant

this video more thoroughly documents exactly how they're dictating legislation to congress

[video=youtube;5Hmhdv_OSvA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Hmhdv_OSvA[/video]

monckton isn't a scientist


The Earth Hasn&#8217;t Stopped Warming

by Kevin Trenberth - Distinguished senior scientist, Climate Analysis Section, National Center for Atmospheric Research
What&#8217;s going on? &#8220;1998 was the warmest year in the last century,&#8221; explains Kevin Trenberth, a distinguished senior scientist in the Climate Analysis Section of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. &#8220;There was a big El Niño event in 1997 and 1998, and we have a lot of evidence that there was a lot of heat coming out of the ocean at that time. So that&#8217;s the real anomaly &#8212; the fact that we had what was perhaps the biggest El Niño event on record.&#8221;

This claim was popularized by &#8220;Lord&#8221; Christopher Monckton, a prominent British climate &#8220;skeptic&#8221; with no scientific background who presented himself as a member of the House of Lords until the Parliament published a cease and desist order demanding that he stop. His so-called &#8220;research&#8221; relies on people&#8217;s confusion about the difference between weather, which fluctuates all the time, and climate, which speaks to long-term trends. With some careful cherrypicking of data, you get the argument that there&#8217;s been &#8220;no global warming for 17 years, 3 months.&#8221;

&#8220;That&#8217;s one of the cherrypicking points for deniers &#8212; they take the highest value and then compare it&#8221; with lower points in the natural temperature fluctuation we know as &#8220;weather.&#8221; &#8220;If you choose the highest value,&#8221; says Trenberth, &#8220;then the odds are that all the other values are going to be lower &#8212; even in the presence of an overall warming climate.&#8221;

Here&#8217;s what the long-term warming trend looks like, according to both surface and ocean readings:



But the idea that the climate stopped warming at some point goes back even further. In the 1990s, two climatologists, Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen, published a series of papers hypothesizing that global warming had stopped. Spencer and Lindzen are among the few climate contrarians with real scientific credentials, and have been widely cited by climate skeptics; Spencer has testified at a number of Republican congressional hearings on climate science.

Spencer also dismisses the theory of evolution, and has written: &#8220;I view my job a little like a legislator, supported by the taxpayer, to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to minimize the role of government.&#8221;

Of course, none of that matters if their science is sound. But according to John Abraham, a professor of thermal and fluid sciences at the University of St. Thomas School of Engineering, who has published over 130 papers in peer-reviewed journals, it isn&#8217;t. &#8220;It turns out that they made three serious errors in their data,&#8221; he explains. &#8220;It took years, and it took a lot of time from other scientists to find these errors in their calculations. In fact, they switched a positive sign for a negative sign in one of their equations.&#8221;

He adds that while warming has in fact slowed on the earth&#8217;s surface, &#8220;93 percent of the heat goes into the ocean, and the ocean continues to heat, so people are confusing temperature fluctuations in the atmosphere &#8212; the weather &#8212; with long-term climate change.&#8221;

This graphic shows the change in total heat content on the planet&#8217;s surface and in its oceans:



Land, atmosphere and ice heating (red), 0-700 meter ocean heat content (OHC) increase (light blue), 700-2,000 meter OHC increase (dark blue). (Graphic: From Nuccitelli et al., 2012)

http://billmoyers.com/2014/05/16/eight-pseudo-scientific-climate-claims-debunked-by-real-scientists/

 

Like hitting your head on a wall, we have one poster that continually repeats the same bogus information from a left wing outlet instead of actually looking any deeper.

 

You know the talking points better then I do. Then again, I don't follow or pay attention to talking points.

 

if by talking points you mean the strategies corporatists are using to reduce workers pay

yes, i've seen them for what they are quite clearly, their plan is to keep you busy working

and shame people into not even looking at the facts or evidence that demonstrate what they do

so, once again you automatically did exactly what they count on you doing, turning away from truth

 

CO2 continues to rise yet there's virtually no warming.

 

according to the same guys that told congress and everyone that smoking doesn't cause cancer

 

Study shows, skeptics know more about climate science than believers

- - - Updated - - -

Another logical fallacy repeated. Why am I not surprised?

 

what a joke, you think black rednecks are a good example of the truth?

you obviously don't understand what constitutes proof either

there's no logical fallacy, i'm referencing facts and evidence


The denial industry

For years, a network of fake citizens' groups and bogus scientific bodies has been claiming that science of global warming is inconclusive. They set back action on climate change by a decade. But who funded them? Exxon's involvement is well known, but not the strange role of Big Tobacco. In the first of three extracts from his new book, George Monbiot tells a bizarre and shocking new story. ExxonMobil is the world's most profitable corporation. Its sales now amount to more than $1bn a day. It makes most of this money from oil, and has more to lose than any other company from efforts to tackle climate change. To safeguard its profits, ExxonMobil needs to sow doubt about whether serious action needs to be taken on climate change. But there are difficulties: it must confront a scientific consensus as strong as that which maintains that smoking causes lung cancer or that HIV causes Aids. So what's its strategy?

The website Exxonsecrets.org, using data found in the company's official documents, lists 124 organisations that have taken money from the company or work closely with those that have. These organisations take a consistent line on climate change: that the science is contradictory, the scientists are split, environmentalists are charlatans, liars or lunatics, and if governments took action to prevent global warming, they would be endangering the global economy for no good reason. The findings these organisations dislike are labelled "junk science". The findings they welcome are labelled "sound science".

Among the organisations that have been funded by Exxon are such well-known websites and lobby groups as TechCentralStation, the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation. Some of those on the list have names that make them look like grassroots citizens' organisations or academic bodies: the Centre for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, for example. One or two of them, such as the Congress of Racial Equality, are citizens' organisations or academic bodies, but the line they take on climate change is very much like that of the other sponsored groups. While all these groups are based in America, their publications are read and cited, and their staff are interviewed and quoted, all over the world.

By funding a large number of organisations, Exxon helps to create the impression that doubt about climate change is widespread. For those who do not understand that scientific findings cannot be trusted if they have not appeared in peer-reviewed journals, the names of these institutes help to suggest that serious researchers are challenging the consensus.

This is not to claim that all the science these groups champion is bogus. On the whole, they use selection, not invention. They will find one contradictory study - such as the discovery of tropospheric cooling, which, in a garbled form, has been used by Peter Hitchens in the Mail on Sunday - and promote it relentlessly. They will continue to do so long after it has been disproved by further work. So, for example, John Christy, the author of the troposphere paper, admitted in August 2005 that his figures were incorrect, yet his initial findings are still being circulated and championed by many of these groups, as a quick internet search will show you.

But they do not stop there. The chairman of a group called the Science and Environmental Policy Project is Frederick Seitz. Seitz is a physicist who in the 1960s was president of the US National Academy of Sciences. In 1998, he wrote a document, known as the Oregon Petition, which has been cited by almost every journalist who claims that climate change is a myth.

The document reads as follows: "We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

Anyone with a degree was entitled to sign it. It was attached to a letter written by Seitz, entitled Research Review of Global Warming Evidence. The lead author of the "review" that followed Seitz's letter is a Christian fundamentalist called Arthur B Robinson. He is not a professional climate scientist. It was co-published by Robinson's organisation - the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine - and an outfit called the George C Marshall Institute, which has received $630,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998. The other authors were Robinson's 22-year-old son and two employees of the George C Marshall Institute. The chairman of the George C Marshall Institute was Frederick Seitz.

The paper maintained that: "We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the carbon dioxide increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life than that with which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution."

It was printed in the font and format of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: the journal of the organisation of which Seitz - as he had just reminded his correspondents - was once president.

Soon after the petition was published, the National Academy of Sciences released this statement: "The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal. The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy."

But it was too late. Seitz, the Oregon Institute and the George C Marshall Institute had already circulated tens of thousands of copies, and the petition had established a major presence on the internet. Some 17,000 graduates signed it, the majority of whom had no background in climate science. It has been repeatedly cited - by global-warming sceptics such as David Bellamy, Melanie Phillips and others - as a petition by climate scientists. It is promoted by the Exxon-sponsored sites as evidence that there is no scientific consensus on climate change.

All this is now well known to climate scientists and environmentalists. But what I have discovered while researching this issue is that the corporate funding of lobby groups denying that manmade climate change is taking place was initiated not by Exxon, or by any other firm directly involved in the fossil fuel industry. It was started by the tobacco company Philip Morris.

In December 1992, the US Environmental Protection Agency published a 500-page report called Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking. It found that "the widespread exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) in the United States presents a serious and substantial public health impact. In adults: ETS is a human lung carcinogen, responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths annually in US non-smokers. In children: ETS exposure is causally associated with an increased risk of lower respiratory tract infections such as bronchitis and pneumonia. This report estimates that 150,000 to 300,000 cases annually in infants and young children up to 18 months of age are attributable to ETS."

Had it not been for the settlement of a major class action against the tobacco companies in the US, we would never have been able to see what happened next. But in 1998 they were forced to publish their internal documents and post them on the internet.

Within two months of its publication, Philip Morris, the world's biggest tobacco firm, had devised a strategy for dealing with the passive-smoking report. In February 1993 Ellen Merlo, its senior vice-president of corporate affairs, sent a letter to William I Campbell, Philip Morris's chief executive officer and president, explaining her intentions: "Our overriding objective is to discredit the EPA report ... Concurrently, it is our objective to prevent states and cities, as well as businesses, from passive-smoking bans."

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2

 

The types of deniers, from most common to least common. In this thread, nearly all the deniers obviously fall into category #1.

1, Wingnuts and libertarians. Their political cult orders them to deny global warming, so they do, period.
2. Cranky contrarians who say that going against the mainstream proves what original thinkers they are, just like all the other contrarians.
3. Tunnel-vision blinded engineers who know that their narrow specialization explains the entire universe perfectly.
4. Those looking to increase the value of their fossil fuel corporation stocks.
5. Genuine paid disinformers and shills.
6. Honest lukewarmers who actually try to discuss the science.

 

Interesting opinion.

I look at the global warmest much on a same scale, just a tad smaller.

1. Scientist who are paid to study global warming
2. Left wing mouth foaming idiots who repeat what they heard on MSNBC and call others idiots who disagree, all while working towards their GED.

 

I see the "global warming" religionists are trying again to explain how record cold weather for extended periods of time is proof of "global warming".

I guess that's why they changed the lexicon some years ago to "climate change". None of their computer model predictions since the 1990s have come true and even some of the cultists were beginning to question the conclusions derived from fabricated data and faked conclusions. It wasn't warming like they said. The arctic ice isn't ice free like Al Gore said it might be by now (want me to post a link to his speech again), the polar bears are fine, there is more antarctic ice than there has been in 35 years.

"What can we do?" they asked at one of the Davos meetings to which the bishops of the "global warming" religion flew in 1700 private jets. "Why, lets confuse the rubes some more." They concluded. "Lets call it 'Climate change'. That way, whether its cold or hot, whether there are lots of hurricanes or none, whether there are droughts or floods, we can blame it all on 'Climate change' and get those grants, subsidies for boondoggle solar projects, and donations flowing. We can get those San Francisco yuppies scared to death so they will march in the streets again and we can pass laws to make people live like 16th century peasants while we fly around in jets, live in huge mansions, and collect the graft". The motion was passed unanimously.

 

But sadly for you, nearly the entire planet just laughs at your entire line of thinking.

And that's how it will be from now on. You deniers will have to come to terms with that, being ridiculed by the entire planet, as it's only going to keep getting worse. You've been routed by the evidence so completely, all you can do is gather in packs on message boards to chant your conspiracy mantras together. Even FOX News and the GOP are starting to consider deniers to be toxic, that's how low denier fortunes have sunk.

That's not because of a VastGlobalSocialistConspiracy arrayed against deniers. It's because denier science stinks so badly. It's nothing but conspiracy babbling now, and most of the comments in this thread belong in the Conspiracy Theory folder. Denier babble is every bit as crazy as birtherism, 9/11 trutherism, antivaxxism, moon landing hoaxism or any other conspiracy theory. It still has a shield of political correctness protecting it to a certain degree now, but our ongoing laughter will eventually take care of that, and global warming denial will take it's proper place among the Oswald-didn't-act-alone stories.

 

This whole money thing is such a sad state of affairs. Because it will ultimately destroy us all. Here's just another example of how one's pursuit of money destroyed another's pursuit of money, and all at the expense of the environment and the creatures that live there; http://www.msnbc.com/the-ed-show# We have all but destroyed one of our greatest and most important food treasures because of our glutton for money.

 

1. Prove it

2. Prove it

3. Prove it

 

I'm not aiming for riches, I'm just trying to keep what's mine. Why is that a problem?

 

Again, you expose yourself as not seeing forest for tree. I'm not sure you will ever make the connection. You continue to use tunnel vision logic, and I'm not about to change that for you. "YOU" has to do it for "YOU". And I'm not going to waste any more time trying, because it is clear you will never allow it to come from me.

 

You must live on an awfully small planet. Size of a baseball maybe?

Study shows, skeptics know more about climate science than believers

 

We already have. Our actions are already killing us; Whether it be from burning fossil fuels or contaminating our water supply, the proof is there for all to see; http://myscienceacademy.org/2014/11/20/32-photos-that-shows-how-bad-pollution-has-become-in-china/

 

Lol! Only in the Fox News bubble. Did you happen to take notice they never said who the "BELIEVERS" were? Lol! Were they random people from a homeless shelter maybe? Who knows! Leave it to Fox News to tell us who the skeptics were, but we have no idea who the Believers were. Fox News, what a joke. Dude, you make things too easy for us.

 

bill nye lies.

97% of Scientist do not agree global warming is caused by humans.

bill nye realizes the term global warming ain't cutting it for the scam they want to run,

so now it's climate change and voila' they have an answer for every weather scenario.

You liberals are all easily grubbered, just like obamacare, you will fall for anything.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/14/politics/obamacare-voters-stupid-explainer/index.html

 

climate scientists aren't religionists and the bit about cold weather for extended periods of time is funny, it's called winter

a vast consensus of scientists that have published papers on agw, agree that it's real


There Is a Scientific Consensus

The most important thing to understand about the scientific consensus that human activities are causing the earth to warm is that it isn&#8217;t a result of peer pressure or someone policing scientists&#8217; opinions. It results from the scientific method.

John Abraham - Professor of thermal and fluid sciences, University of St. Thomas School of Engineering

&#8220;Scientists are very interested in theories that other factors may be causing climate change,&#8221; says John Abraham. &#8220;The contrarians put forward ideas and the consensus scientists investigate them honestly and find that they don&#8217;t withstand scientific scrutiny. This happens all the time. That&#8217;s how science works. In fact, showing that these guys are wrong makes the science better.&#8221;

A scientific consensus emerges when the weight of evidence for a proposition becomes so great that serious researchers stop arguing about it among themselves. They then move on to study and debate other questions. There&#8217;s quite a bit of scientific debate about lots of different aspects of climate change, but the question of whether humans are causing the planet to warm isn&#8217;t one of them.

There have been three studies, using different methodologies, that have shown that almost all working climate scientists &#8212; 97 percent &#8212; accept the consensus view.

But what if those three percent who reportedly reject the consensus are like Galileo, who challenged the 16th century view that the sun revolved around the Earth? John Abraham and five of his colleagues published a study earlier this year which found that studies authored by climate contrarians &#8220;were often found to be unsubstantiated by the data,&#8221; resulting in &#8220;criticisms, corrections, and in some cases, resignation of editors.&#8221; They add: &#8220;the same fate has not befallen the prominent consensus studies.&#8221;

But that hasn&#8217;t prevented climate deniers from compiling long lists of people they claim to be dissenting climatologists. The most prominent of these was the Oregon Petition, which was organized by a chemist named Art Robinson, founder of a group called the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM), which also markets a home-schooling kit for &#8220;parents concerned about socialism in the public schools.&#8221;

The petition was supposedly signed by &#8220;31,000 American scientists&#8221; who opposed the consensus &#8220;entirely on scientific grounds published in peer reviewed journals.&#8221; But in fact, anyone could sign on, and according to Michael Mann, director of Penn State&#8217;s Earth System Science Center, the list ultimately included the Spice Girls and several Star Wars characters.

More recently, climate change denier Marc Morano, who in the past has worked for both Rush Limbaugh and Sen. James &#8220;Climate Change Is A Hoax&#8221; Inhofe (R-OK), compiled a smaller list that he says is proof that the consensus is &#8220;falling apart.&#8221;

Barry Bickmore, &#8220;a geochemistry professor at Brigham Young University, an active Mormon, and an active Republican,&#8221; looked at a sample of the names on Morano&#8217;s list and found mechanical engineers, a biochemist and a metallurgist working for US Magnesium, but no working climate scientists who had published in peer-reviewed journals.

http://billmoyers.com/2014/05/16/eight-pseudo-scientific-climate-claims-debunked-by-real-scientists/

 

I love your sense of humor.