litebeam
Well-known member
and the new reality ...
No way....Trump would have never got us into Iraq.
But his efforts with ISIS are commendable, news largely unreported by a corrupt media.
and the new reality ...
Happy New Year!
...this in spite of the fact that Al Gore predicted the demise of our polar ice cap by now. ...Cities under seawater, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!
Did he?
Those places have experienced epic storms and flooding for millennia. So have many others.
That water is now long gone.
Gore's carbon scam posits permanent water-logging of said areas...
Nah, me thinks AGW sheep cherry pick what is convenient for their agenda, and they avoid the other places that are experiencing the opposite or simply no change at all. In The case of NOAA and NASA, they've actually manipulated retrieved data to further the AGW hysteria. Liars all.
You don't think deniers cherry pick data then? And I think you will find Miami is spending millions if not billions of dollars to prevent itself being permanently under water ! As are Shanghai and other cities not confident in your confidence it's all a hoax!!
No way....Trump would have never got us into Iraq.
But his efforts with ISIS are commendable, news largely unreported by a corrupt media.
So flipping what?From whence comes thy faith?
"North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un just stated that the 'Nuclear Button is on his desk at all times.' Will someone from his depleted and food starved regime please inform him that I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my Button works!"
Thought I'd stumbled upon the "Trump's Inaugural" thread there for a minute! :eek!: ..... ever notice how KJU is the only fat North Korean you've ever seen?!? :eat:
Back to the topic - How epically sad that the attempted generalized pigeonhole "denier" is trotted out .... :-C
Even sadder that the best some of the supporters of the Democratic Party can offer is to demonize "the other" .... gawd help you all if you think that that is offering a superior alternative government. The h8 pumped out on this thread and others from the self declared political elite is truly vomit inducing .....
Chosun :gh:
It's never okay to resort to insults, belittling pigeonholing, ad hominem attacks, or "demonizing the other" , no matter which side of the discussion, argument or even politics one is on. The two threads I referred to seem to have become the personal plaything of one particular individual (as evidenced by his post counts on them being multiple times that of anyone else) - someone who has self confessed "issues" ......AGW Sheep is not an insult then ? Don't really consider myself political elite and have certainly never claimed it. One thing i have never really understood is why anyone one would make up climate change alright there might be money in renewables but seems an awful lot of effort to "fix" the whole of mainstream media and the scientific community to support it? Especially as in Britain most of the mainstream written media at least, Daily Mail etc are clearly not supporting it therefore proving the lie that the media is complicit in it??
Also for future reference what do people who say climate is change is not happening prefer to be called as i don't want you to lose your breakfast.
It's going to be interesting to watch as the USA takes a bigger hit of the consequences of climate change how long it will be before they start doing something about it. Although i notice a lot of states are now acting unilaterally especially those on the receiving end.
It's never okay to resort to insults, belittling pigeonholing, ad hominem attacks, or "demonizing the other" , no matter which side of the discussion, argument or even politics one is on. The two threads I referred to seem to have become the personal plaything of one particular individual (as evidenced by his post counts on them being multiple times that of anyone else) - someone who has self confessed "issues" ......
If I was in the business of providing an alternative political leadership offering, the very first thing I would do is to rise above the nastiness to a higher plane - one that plays the ball and not the man. Not sink further into the mire and engage in exactly the same sort of behaviors he accuses "the other" of, and with interest to boot.
As far as a changing climate goes, it always has, long before man came on the scene - I'd be very interested in knowing the exact causes. That's the fundamental overlooked elephant in the room. Peering at the minutiae of modeling detail based on compounded questionable assumptions does not provide 'proof' to me.
I don't think it's necessarily a case of conspiracy, it's perhaps among other causes, something more like 'groupthink' and systemic shortcomings in the scientific revue processes and it's implicit independence (real or perceived).
I think it best to avoid labels of those who don't agree with a particular point of view in order not to fall into the trap of "demonizing the other" .... just think of them as open-minded, unconvinced, and inquisitive .....
And as far as political action based on so-called 'science' - politicians have proven time and again that they couldn't organise a chook raffle.
I'm all for positive incentive for renewable energy such as R&D credits etc (very much so!), as well as accounting for the true cost of pollution (inherent natural environment capital displaced, and adverse effects of water tables by open cut mines etc, but short of taxing CO2) as part of prudent sustainable development - but not in 'taxing' 'air' as some sort of ideology or religion.
One would seriously have to question how much of an issue natural weather events (that you allude to) would be if only humans had the sense to not build on floodplains and drained swamps ?????
Chosun :gh:
. . .someone who has self confessed “issues”.
As far as a changing climate goes, it always has, long before man came on the scene - I'd be very interested in knowing the exact causes. That's the fundamental overlooked elephant in the room. Peering at the minutiae of modeling detail based on compounded questionable assumptions does not provide 'proof' to me.
Ah i wasn't actually aware that denier was such an insult? do people who deny climate change object to be called deniers? ....
Indeed it has, and the causes are well-documented - the Milankovitch cycles is probably the best summary. Not keen on links as you know, but this one will do as (correctly in all scientific papers in my view) it also points out some of the flaws as well.
http://pmt.physicsandmathstutor.com.../OCR/Climate-Change/Climate Change Causes.pdf
BUT all of this is completely irrelevant to the current topic of man-made AGW because it is on a completely different timescale. The climate in the past has always changed, has been much hotter, and much colder, BUT on cycles of tens of thousands of years.
What we are talking about is levels of CO2 that have changed in the last 50-100 years, and that are now 30% higher than they've been in the last 800,00 years.
So this is different - and carbon isotope measurement of the Co2 shows it is from a predominantly organic carbon source (like burning fossil fuels) not inorganic (from volcanic irruptions) - which have caused historic peaks.
So it is correct, but irrelevant, to say the Earth's climate has always changed. It in no way impacts the veracity or seriousness of current AGW and ocean acidification. An inconvenient truth indeed
Hope this helps Chosun...
Indeed it has, and the causes are well-documented - the Milankovitch cycles is probably the best summary. Not keen on links as you know, but this one will do as (correctly in all scientific papers in my view) it also points out some of the flaws as well.
http://pmt.physicsandmathstutor.com.../OCR/Climate-Change/Climate Change Causes.pdf
BUT all of this is completely irrelevant to the current topic of man-made AGW because it is on a completely different timescale. The climate in the past has always changed, has been much hotter, and much colder, BUT on cycles of tens of thousands of years.
What we are talking about is levels of CO2 that have changed in the last 50-100 years, and that are now 30% higher than they've been in the last 800,00 years.
So this is different - and carbon isotope measurement of the Co2 shows it is from a predominantly organic carbon source (like burning fossil fuels) not inorganic (from volcanic irruptions) - which have caused historic peaks.
So it is correct, but irrelevant, to say the Earth's climate has always changed. It in no way impacts the veracity or seriousness of current AGW and ocean acidification. An inconvenient truth indeed.
Hope this helps Chosun...
I wouldn't be too sure about the "tens of thousands of years" over-generalization, — see attachment.
I
Carbon isotope measurements of atmospheric CO2 are heavily disputed, as are CO2 longevity and ocean acidification.
Ed
OK thousands of years if you like - still the same point.