Global Warming, Make That Climate Change Yeah

[Tom]

Originally Posted by hcap

As AGW is 100%. Unless we take immediate action.

That was the point.

Well you point had nothing to do the with the conversation I was having with Actor. As usual, you have no idea what is going on.
And the effects of GW are not 100%.

[jimmyb]

Originally Posted by Actor

The IPCC was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. The IPCC awarded Mann a certificate for his efforts which lead to the IPCC winning the prize.

IPCC has Thousands of others like Mann as well. They all get the same participation certificate.



In his lawsuit against Mark Steyn, his complaint read "Defamation of a Nobel Prize winner". He was forced to amend the complaint by withdrawing the part containing Nobel Prize winner.


If I'm on a jury, any sign of exaggeration on a witnesses part would be grounds to throw out the entire witnesses testimony. Exaggeration = Lie. If the defense is allowed to bring that up, it's game over for Mann.



It's why I'm skeptical of the likes of Gore, Mann, AOC ... Lies, exaggerations, debunked prophesies. Their lack of desire to have the courage of their convictions. Flapping of their gums about catastrophic climate change, but no desire to live without the conveniences they so freely verbally trash.



Can't see how an intelligent person with the power of reason can't see through the bullshit.

[reckless]

Originally Posted by hcap

Your vile antisemitism. I will rephrase my thoughts. Jews are better at science than anti-semites who think they can insult me other Jews and play INNOCENT as tho' nothing happened.

I have not forgotten you assh*le.

But hey, now you are UPDATING your half witted insults, calling me...... .
What an ignorant childish petulant POS! you are!.

I know you know nothing about AGW or anything else. So you have nothing to say or substance on this thread.

And nothing to say to me.

You're a vile lunatic who continues to shame your family and this web site.

Since you claim you're so smart and everyone else on here is ignorant .... answer this:

Give us the name of the Noble Peace prize winner for 'science' that filled that hole in the Ozone Layer?

Should be an easy answer to provide.

Since my freshman year in high school and way past my college days, all you lunatics in the global warming circus were telling us we were destroying the Ozone Layer and it was a matter of time before we destroy the entire World.

Well, high school, etc., was over and done with over 30 years ago and the Earth wasn't destroyed ... so I could only guess that someone must have filled and closed that big hole in the Ozone Layer.

Who was Noble Prize winner that closed the hole in the Ozone Layer all you idiots and lunatics said was there that scared everyone shitless?

No, don't say it -- was there really no hole in the Ozone Layer?

Can't be: 100s of scientists and professors told us there was a hole, for decades. The same tenured jack asses that are still scaring kids and making a laughingstock out of all the idiots and crazy believers such as you.

Not to mention all those companies that lost money selling cans of hair spray ...

[jimmyb]

Scientists analyzed the symptoms of a new disease called Climate Hysteria;



Symptoms include but not limited to “anxiety, A slight fever, a tendency towards verbal diarrhea – that’s how it spreads itself, you see. – shortness of breath, a sense of gloom and doom, feeling like the world will fall apart in a matter of months, nausea, vomiting, a fear of heat, a fear of cold, a fear of water, a fear feeling parched, a fear of ice, general malaise, depression, a fear of impending doom, feeling like your as dead as a doornail."


The virus attacks the neuropathways in the brain that control how often a person sighs. Who knew that the sigh was actually a life-sustaining force, designed to re-inflate collapsing alveoli in the lungs?


If you have any of these symptoms please call the CDC at once! Dr. Gore is here to help.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Are you saying the media wrote fake news stories about global cooling and the coming of a new ice age? If the media wrote fake news in the 70's about climate, I say there is a great probability the media is writing fake news about global climate change now.

Did you read the article I posted? Pay attention to the Peer-Reviewed Literature not the few wrong medias articles cited by you deniers

Again.....

https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age...termediate.htm

Mainstream Media

What was the scientific consensus in the 1970s regarding future climate? The most cited example of 1970s cooling predictions is a 1975 Newsweek article "The Cooling World" that suggested cooling "may portend a drastic decline for food production."

"Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend… But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century."

A 1974 Time magazine article Another Ice Age? painted a similarly bleak picture:

"When meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe, they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."

Peer-Reviewed Literature

A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case.

[hcap]

Now as far as the hockey stick.....
As I suspected, you were the one to post the original garbage about it.

Originally Posted by SMTW
So, the graph was junk science. You could put baseball scores into Mann’s Climate Model and it would create the Hockey Stick..................................

.......But the big question then became: did Mann intentionally falsify his graph from motivation to make profit and/or cause harm (i.e. commit the five elements of criminal fraud)?......

And I answered.....

Posts #1419, #1420.

You are full of it. Again , again and again.
I have debunked ALL OF YOUR POSTED OBJECTIONS TO AGW for months now.

My suggestion is stick to the law. It is open to political and cultural interpretation.

Science and math are not.

Also, boxcar needs some assistance with his religious interpretations as horrendously applied lately to his annoying absurd, monotonous uber-right political and cultural admonitions

[hcap]

Hey assh*le....

reckless
This message is hidden because reckless is on your ignore list.

[rastajenk]

Originally Posted by hcap

My suggestion is stick to the law. It is open to political and cultural interpretation.

Science and math are not.

Of course science can be used in political ways. Always has been. Even math has been called a relic of the Patriarchy and a tool for White Supremacy.

[thezeeman333]

Checking out at the store, the young cashier suggested to the much older lady that she should bring her own grocery bags, because plastic bags are not good for the environment,.
The woman apologized to the young girl and explained, "We didn't have this 'green thing' back in my earlier days."
The young clerk responded, "That's our problem today. Your generation did not care enough to save our environment for future generations."
The older lady said that she was right our generation didn't have the "green thing" in its day. The older lady went on to explain: Back then, we returned milk bottles, soda bottles and beer bottles to the store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and over. So they really were recycled.
But we didn't have the "green thing" back in our day. Grocery stores bagged our groceries in brown paper bags that we reused for numerous things. Most memorable besides household garbage bags was the use of brown paper bags as book covers for our school books. This was to ensure that public property (the books provided for our use by the school) was not defaced by our scribblings. Then we were able to personalize our books on the brown paper bags.
But, too bad we didn't do the "green thing" back then. We walked up stairs because we didn't have an escalator in every store and office building. We walked to the grocery store and didn't climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time we had to go two blocks. But she was right. We didn't have the "green thing" in our day.
Back then we washed the baby's diapers because we didn't have the throw away kind. We dried clothes on a line, not in an energy-gobbling machine burning up 220 volts. Wind and solar power really did dry our clothes back in our early days.
Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing. But that young lady is right; we didn't have the "green thing" back in our day.
Back then we had one TV, or radio, in the house -- not a TV in every room. And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief (remember them?), not a screen the size of the state of Montana.
In the kitchen we blended and stirred by hand because we didn't have electric machines to do everything for us.
When we packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, we used wadded up old newspapers to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap.
Back then, we didn't fire up an engine and burn gasoline just to cut the lawn. We used a push mower that ran on human power.
We exercised by working so we didn't need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity. But she's right; we didn't have the "green thing" back then.
We drank from a fountain when we were thirsty instead of using a cup or a plastic bottle every time we had a drink of water. We refilled writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and we replaced the razor blade in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull. But we didn't have the "green thing" back then.
Back then, people took the streetcar or a bus and kids rode their bikes to school or walked instead of turning their moms into a 24-hour taxi service in the family's $45,000 SUV or van, which cost what a whole house did before the "green thing."
We had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And we didn't need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites 23,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest burger joint.
But isn't it sad the current generation laments how wasteful we old folks were just because we didn't have the "green thing" back then?
Please forward this on to another selfish old person who needs a lesson in conservation from a smart ass young person. We don't like being old in the first place, so it doesn't take much to piss us off... Especially from a tattooed, multiple pierced smart ass who can't make change without the cash register telling them how much.

[JustRalph]

1967: Dire Famine Forecast By 1975
1969: Everyone Will Disappear In a Cloud Of Blue Steam By 1989 (1969)
1970: Ice Age By 2000
1970: America Subject to Water Rationing By 1974 and Food Rationing By 1980
1971: New Ice Age Coming By 2020 or 2030
1972: New Ice Age By 2070
1974: Space Satellites Show New Ice Age Coming Fast
1974: Another Ice Age?
1974: Ozone Depletion a ‘Great Peril to Life
1976: Scientific Consensus Planet Cooling, Famines imminent
1980: Acid Rain Kills Life In Lakes
1978: No End in Sight to 30-Year Cooling Trend
1988: Regional Droughts (that never happened) in 1990s
1988: Temperatures in DC Will Hit Record Highs
1988: Maldive Islands will Be Underwater by 2018 (they’re not)
1989: Rising Sea Levels will Obliterate Nations if Nothing Done by 2000
1989: New York City’s West Side Highway Underwater by 2019 (it’s not)
2000: Children Won’t Know what Snow Is
2002: Famine In 10 Years If We Don’t Give Up Eating Fish, Meat, and Dairy
2004: Britain will Be Siberia by 2024
2008: Arctic will Be Ice Free by 2018
2008: Climate Genius Al Gore Predicts Ice-Free Arctic by 2013
2009: Climate Genius Prince Charles Says we Have 96 Months to Save World
2009: UK Prime Minister Says 50 Days to ‘Save The Planet From Catastrophe’
2009: Climate Genius Al Gore Moves 2013 Prediction of Ice-Free Arctic to 2014
2013: Arctic Ice-Free by 2015
2014: Only 500 Days Before ‘Climate Chaos’
1968: Overpopulation Will Spread Worldwide
1970: World Will Use Up All its Natural Resources
1966: Oil Gone in Ten Years
1972: Oil Depleted in 20 Years
1977: Department of Energy Says Oil will Peak in 90s
1980: Peak Oil In 2000
1996: Peak Oil in 2020
2002: Peak Oil in 2010
2006: Super Hurricanes!
2005 : Manhattan Underwater by 2015
1970: Urban Citizens Will Require Gas Masks by 1985
1970: Nitrogen buildup Will Make All Land Unusable
1970: Decaying Pollution Will Kill all the Fish
1970s: Killer Bees!

[reckless]

Originally Posted by hcap

Hey assh*le....

If I am on your ignore list and my message was hidden, how on God's green, clean earth did you know what I posted?

You are a lunatic, zealot and a total failure in the department of common sense -- and a payat!

BTW, what year did you throw away all the aerosol cans in the house?

You remember, all those little cans of hair spray and shoe polish that we were told by 1000s of college 'professors', 'scientists' and 'experts' that made the hole in the Ozone Layer?

[davew]

alarmist rhetoric

YouTube

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by hcap

Did you read the article I posted? Pay attention to the Peer-Reviewed Literature not the few wrong medias articles cited by you deniers

Again.....

https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age...termediate.htm

Mainstream Media

What was the scientific consensus in the 1970s regarding future climate? The most cited example of 1970s cooling predictions is a 1975 Newsweek article "The Cooling World" that suggested cooling "may portend a drastic decline for food production."

"Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend… But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century."

A 1974 Time magazine article Another Ice Age? painted a similarly bleak picture:

"When meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe, they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."

Peer-Reviewed Literature

A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case.

Again, articles were actually written about it and it climate scare was pushed in schools just like now. I don't need studies to tell me my actual experiences. I was alive in the 70's and during that time frame i attended high school and college. Your article does not debunk my first person experience, of actually reading print articles, listening to broadcast news reports about it and the propaganda from my teachers and professors.

I'll give you that it was fake news then and man made climate change is still fake news.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by hcap

Now as far as the hockey stick.....
As I suspected, you were the one to post the original garbage about it.


And I answered.....

Posts #1419, #1420.

You are full of it. Again , again and again.
I have debunked ALL OF YOUR POSTED OBJECTIONS TO AGW for months now.

My suggestion is stick to the law. It is open to political and cultural interpretation.

Science and math are not.

Also, boxcar needs some assistance with his religious interpretations as horrendously applied lately to his annoying absurd, monotonous uber-right political and cultural admonitions

I am discussing the law. Dr. Mann lost his lawsuit against Dr. Ball, because Dr. Mann refused to have his methodology peer reviewed.

Your repeated standard to us, no peer review the claim is debunked as junk science.

There is no subjective area, either it meets the criteria of being peer reviewed or not?

Why are you trying to justify a non-peer reviewed method as settled science?

[chrisl]

10,000 years ago Chicago was under 1500 feet of ice.(Laurentide Ice Sheet) and yet 5,000 years ago it was down to only 50 feet. Remember the MAN MADE Industrial revolution didn't start until 1850.

During the Eemian Interglacial Period, which was the warm period between the last two Ice Ages, temperatures were much warmer and sea levels between 27 to 34 feet higher than today's Holocene Period. Not saying man doesn't contribute a very small percentage.

Solar Activity, the wobble in the Earth's orbit, Volcanic activity, natural seafloor methane releases and dozens of other contributors, which we have zero control of, are the largest contributors of a climate cycle that has gone on long before our ability to record these changes.