Just like cigarettes and lead paint right?

lulz

Actually, I missed nothing. You, on the other hand, lack any sense of irony whatsoever.


Exactly.

Just like the claims made re: the existence of "global warmi"....errrrr...."climate change".

Thanks for playing. ;)

You mean all those same indications that caused folks, such as yourself, to believe he couldn't possibly be elected POTUS, right?

Just don't be surprised if you're proven wrong about Trump. Again.

One could very rightly say the past several decades of his life have been all about proving people wrong in their judgments of him, his potential, and what he will accomplish.

I think we should clarify that there were only officially 800 jobs saved in this deal, which I agree is a good thing. Carrier, however, is still moving 1300 jobs to Mexico.

Wait, do you really think global warming doesn't exist?

Yes, I believe he does and will prove it to you by changing the subject or using the word lulz but without any real scientific evidence.

Yeah.

Obama's administration just approved NAI.

You are demonstrably, undeniably a sucker.

Nevermind. . .

This is pure stupidity. Scientists theorize that it is caused by humans. See the keyword "theorize". Nobody really knows. I don't think that's what people are debating. You cannot actually say it is not caused by humans, thus let me ask you a question. If there is a 1% chance that it is caused by humans and we had the ability to change it, would you do so? Don't we owe it to generations to come to do everything in our power to try and stop this? Why exactly would you ever possibly hold on to doing nothing? That makes absolutely no sense. There are two data points that are matching up. The rise in temperature, coupled with the rise of industrial byproducts. This is not rocket surgery. Anyone who believes in doing nothing about global warming is completely and utterly insane and or selfish. And if you are letting politics drive your thinking on this issue then you really need to look at this from an unemotional logical approach of risk versus reward.

Climate change might include, or not include global warming, it may include, or not include global cooling. All we know is that humans are unnaturally affecting the global climate in some way, be that cooling, or possibly warming, or possibly causing an extended equilibrium, or not at all.

This is the argument of climate scientists.

Lemme explain the why, who, and how of "climate change" to you, in 3 simple pictures...




http://www.commonsenseevaluation.com...-Consensus.jpg






http://www.climatechangedispatch.com..._colluding.jpg






http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_tb0lU7SbvK...te+Science.png














Take away tax-payer funded climate research and just watch the temps come down.

The whole thing is massive fraud. Proven countless times over.

I just want to know what caused global warming when the ice age ended!?

So your argument is that a bunch of incredibly smart people who probably could have made a much better living doing something else but instead dedicated their lives to science and knowledge are placing their personal and professional integrity on the line in order to get more funding for their fake research?

Those were cartoons that looked like they were drawn by kids. You just eliminated yourself from an intelligent discussion.

Nope. It's not even an argument. It's a fact.

A group of people calling themselves "climatologists", 95% of whom have more than proven they have no integrity whatsoever, were clever enough to scare a bunch of easily-fooled chumps into giving them increasing amounts of money. All of it predicated upon theory and "consensus", most of whose "proof" comes from demonstrably manipulated data to show what the fraudsters need(ed) it to show.


http://thefederalistpapers.integrate...205_156257.jpg

Dinosaurs eating bean burritos? :p

Again, these "climatologists" have doctorates in degrees that require a highly sophisticated knowledge of mathematics, physics, and chemistry. You truly believe they went through all of that time, money, and effort in order spit in the face of every scientist that came before them who created a culture of strong scientific integrity in order to further the public good and then were able to get 97% of their colleagues to join them in a vast global conspiracy to defraud the world all in an attempt to drum up additional research money to perpetuate said fraud.

And I'd like to get in on this too, since I'm "in" the government. No one has approached me offering me a cut to keep it all hush hush :(

Let's just say I find your altruistic belief in the integrity of climate "science" to be very amusing, right along with the downplaying of the notion that there isn't huge $$ to be made in things like gov't grants, academic tenure, getting published, etc.

http://www.frugal-cafe.com/public_ht...ng-cartoon.jpg






































https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...497234539f.jpg

It actually is a fraud, the proposed solutions are fraudulent. We have technology to deal with so called climate change, but that tech has been banned by the people pushing these agendas, with the purpose of advancing the agenda.

Who cares that if the ocean rises a bit....Bangladesh is a sh!tty country anyway.

Even if it were all true, how do you get China and India on board?

Huge money to be made as a scientist conducting research? Shirley you aren't serious? Have you ever conducted academic research yourself, or are you just repeating what you've heard someone else say? You realize that many "scientists" conducting research are working on their doctorates and not living or enjoying an extravagant lifestyle, in fact, many endure some significant hardships to do why they love (science). I've met quite a few of them up north, working independently, for universities and even for oil companies, and yes some of the oil company ones are paid decently (not mainline captain salary, but comfortable), but even they acknowledge the human caused climate change. Using your logic, chemtrails must be real too, as well as 911 conspiracies, the war in Iraq being started for revenge and oil and we never went to the moon.

Start a global warming thread......

I say start a more interesting thread on science naysayers and the pyschology behind why they choose to believe instead of accept reality. My final say on this thread is that anyone who chooses to believe we're not warming up the planet is an idiot. And I choose to believe I won't have a conversation with them any longer. The only debate is how bad we will make this beautiful home of ours for generations to come.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch...

The one thing we may see go out the window under the new regime, and quickly, is the 1500-hr. rule.

The airlines and their lobbying groups have been screaming to get it overturned almost since its inception.

They will play the card of air service being lost to small communities (who probably shouldn't have it anyway), and, of course, the bogeyman of -- gasp! -- higher fares.

But the truth is, the thought of paying regional pilots a livable wage and even recruitment and retention bonuses is making their stomachs turn.

As soon as the conveyor belt between the puppy factories and the regional airlines is turned on again, stand by for a return to the good old days of outsourcing and whipsawing.

Yes, let's do that. Then we can talk about why science deniers refuse to call a human baby in the womb a baby, and why they don't dare say that to an expecting mother who wants the baby.

Thanks for playing your two-faced, hypocritical game.

Yes, because cartoons from an organization that most undoubtedly thinks the world is only 6000 years old is the one we should be listening to for critical analysis of science.

You still haven't explained why you think it's a hoax. I have taken many climate science courses throughout my educational career. Every single professor even before global warming was "a thing" said it's a real thing, outside normal global fluctuations.

What does the government gain by proving the science? And even if you don't think it's happening, what is wrong with pushing forward into more sustainable green technologies? We want to live in a society ruled by Capitalism. I don't like cap and trade or other fine/tax incentives for green energy but outside of completely banning dirty technology, that is the only way our society can make green energy competition viable; at least until it is developed in great enough quantity to be able to compete against super cheap coal burning and natural gas plants. I know this is very socialist of me.

I lol'd.

Those cartoons come from highly respected and widely published cartoonists, including Pulitzer Prize winner Michael Ramirez...not any "organization".

Furthermore, I don't need to prove it is a giant fraud. You adherents need to prove it isn't. And things like the facts of Climategate...or the vile hypocrisy of jet-setting "enviromentalists"...or that 99% of the folks who claim GW skeptics "deny science" also claim "fetuses aren't babies".....don't help your cause one iota.

"Theory" isn't fact, and neither is "consensus".

Btw...let's also make one other thing perfectly clear:

Proving GW is real is one thing, proving it is caused by man and can therefore be reversed is an entirely different thing altogether. In other words, just because you true-believers may yet develop the actual proof that GW is real doesn't mean you have proven that it is caused by man and can be reversed. Not by a long-shot.

The conspiracy theorist gold mine. Even in the light of a mountain of evidence, no one can disprove a negative. Global Climate change isn't a theory. There is proof that artic sea ice is at an all time low. There is proof that global temperatures are at an all time high. There is significant correlation in the rise in CO2 and methane and the rise in global temperatures by using ice core samples. Sea levels are rising and ice sheets are shrinking. Again it isn't a theory that the climate is changing. It isn't a theory that there is a man-made impact to the change. The only debatable topic is to what extent humans are involved. Do you know where CO2 goes after it goes into the air? It is absorbed into water, creates carbonic acid and acidifies the ocean. But it's cool, the Great Barrier reef and ocean life isn't that important.

Again, even if you believe humans are only 10% responsible, why is it evil to disincentive dirty energy and incentive clean energy? Why is it evil when we punish companies when they do things like dump enough pollutants into the water to literally catch it on fire?

Let's park all the aircraft, green energy fast trains are the solution to AGW.

I'm not saying we should eliminate coal or every carbon-based energy consumer or producer. That's illogical right now. I think we should do what we can to reduce, through creating clean and efficient burning technologies and substitute where applicable. We need to acknowledge that we are having a negative impact on our environment and ecosystem (we as in humans, not Americans) and make a legitimate effort to significantly cut dirty carbon emissions.

It doesn't work that way, the issue is that with the politics of AGW, you don't get to dictate terms, international treaties do. Global interests will pick winners, and losers.

Not believing in global warming is just plain ridiculous. It's obvious you are following your political party's lead.

Fact: 97.4% of scientists believe in GW and that humans are the cause or accelerating the process. (Yet somehow armchair republicans know better?)

Fact: what was 250 parts per million in CO2 and methane pre industrial revolution, is now 400 parts per million.

When you say it is a lie or a hoax you just sound crazy or completely incapable of accepting an unemotional and logical factual analysis. You are also saying that every scientist is somehow in on some grand design to do what?


When you fart in a room it stinks and it has an adverse effect. This isnt rocket surgery

:rolleyes:

Yeah. Right. OK.

...and Trump is never going to be the President, either. You can keep your doctor if you like your doctor. ISIS is a JV team. There is a red line in Syria. Experience doesn't matter. Babies in the womb aren't babies. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Ho hum.

Don't you people ever get tired of your lies being proven wrong time after time after time?

Fortunately, the American people are tired of them. It's why your ilk has been returned to the political fringe where it came from and you now only control the governor's mansion and legislatures in just 4 states (2 more must cast tie-breaking votes).

Abe Lincoln said it best...

"You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time."

Enjoy regulating cow farts in La La Land.


https://cbdakota.files.wordpress.com...500_130923.jpg

Not to worry, when the Big Blue Marble tires of us, it will shake us off like so many fleas.

Wait, so you are correlating people not believing Trump could be President to Anthropogenic Global Warming? That makes no logical sense. This isn't a "liberal" cause. This is a human cause. Almost every single country on acknowledges it as an imminent threat. There only people who don't are Republicans because they are owned by Big Business special interests and North Korea. You don't get to vote for Global Warning. This isn't some subjective saber rattling or bluff like a line in the sand. You've provided zero proof(I.e science) to it being a hoax. You can post all the ignorant cartoons you want. By making a connection between Trump getting elected and global warming, you are showing how incredibly misinformed you are. This isn't zero sum. Just because Republicans won this election doesn't mean science is now magically wrong and liberalism is dead. Senate Democrats actually gained two seats. I don't know why you keep harping on abortion rights. It has absolutely no relevancy to what we are talking about.

Don't worry, kiddo. It's possible (not to be confused with probable) that at least one of you wackos' predictions will come true. Someday.

Meantime, you've got cow farts to stop. Better hurry or we're all gonna die.

This quote alone negates you're credibility and ability to have a cogent debate. 'North Korea'? That is a first! By the way, where are all the killer hurricanes hitting the East Coast? It has been a very slow decade for hurricanes contrary to the predictions of Al Gore and his ilk.

You better do a little more research on your "facts."
The study reporting the 97% consensus “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature” by John Cook, and friends under the halo of the University of Queensland was published in 2013 and according to Watts Up With That when the source data for the study was published on line the University of Queensland got so worried, they threatened a lawsuit over use of Cook’s ’97% consensus’ data for a scientific rebuttal.
The way the study was conducted was Cook and his buddies looked at peer reviewed studies and classified them a either agreeing or disagreeing with the hypothesis. The 97% figure was really 97% of the studies they reviewed. However investigative journalists at Popular Technology reported the 97% Study falsely classifies scientists’ papers, according to the scientists that published them
Popular Tech. looked into precisely which papers were classified within Cook’s asserted 97 percent. The investigative journalists found Cook and his colleagues strikingly classified papers by such prominent, vigorous skeptics as Willie Soon, Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir Shaviv, Nils-Axel Morner and Alan Carlin as supporting the 97-percent consensus.A more extensive examination of the Cook study by the New American, reported that out of the nearly 12,000 scientific papers Cook’s team evaluated, only 65 endorsed Cook’s alarmist position. That is less than 0.97%.Another criticism of the Cook and buddies paper is they didn’t define the “consensus” they were looking for. Is the 97% for people who believe the global warming is real, or people who believe its real and caused by mankind.
From the data and methodology Cook has allowed the public to see, the 97% consensus figure is totally bogus, and the fact he preventing full disclosure of his data, via University of Queensland, by threatening legal action suggests there may be more nefarious things being withheld.
The bottom line is that Senator Cruz was correct and Sierra Club president Aaron Mair was full of baloney (or at least the people sitting behind him feeding him answers). And for their baloney they get the worst rating on our global warming liar scale…four ugly Christmas sweaters (because some scientists say we are going to have a mini ice age soon and they will need to keep warm).