Communist Global Warming Fanatics

[Dr Keghead]

Maybe you noticed the recent climate marches in New York and elsewhere. Here are some pictures I find sickening that were taken at these events. How in the world could so many people that have benefited from the very best country in history be so deluded?

Of course, some our very own members is most likely sympathetic, if not even supportive, of the socialist beliefs espoused by these idiots. Similar to his unwillingness to tell us who he is with respect to his name on the other board, I'm certain he'll keep his socialist beliefs well hidden... just like the Golfer-in-Chief he helped elect.

The picture of the guy and his dog on page 3 is a classic illustration of liberal hypocrisy...

[alphadog]

The environmental movement is the newest home for those who want to destroy this country. It's just another made to order tool for those who want to take away our freedoms, and combine it with government run healthcare there isn't a facet of your life they couldn't control.

An example would be forcing everyone to be vegans or vegetarians because that's the healthiest and more eco friendly to Mother Gaia...

[Grandpa1]

I know for a fact that during the summer months here in Texas we have warming and in the winter months we have cooling. Global? Wouldn't know.
I also know that I am a vegetarian when I'm eating a salad and that ends when I take a bite of my steak during the same meal.
I try to cover all the bases.

[bikerbillone]

I 'really' like this thread, I'll be watching it.....

[Dr Keghead]

There's no doubt that temperatures are higher now than they were in the mid 70's... but there's also no doubt that worldwide average temperature have not risen any further for 12-18 years now (depends on the temperature database). Those at the bottom of the scale, like NASA's GISTEMP database, adjust their numbers by lowering past temperatures and raising current ones (I kid you not), which provides the illusion of greatly accelerated warming. There are two satellite temperature measurement systems that do not add any artificial adjustments to the data. The Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) satellite database indicates no statistical warming for the past 18 years... which means that some years are hot and some cold but when statistically analyzed, the warming trend is flat/nonexistent.

[pearlblue1800]

I find it both sad and amusing that many people obtain their 'scientific knowledge' from every where, except from the scientists that are directly involved in that particular field of study.

Basing 'scientific fact' by ones' own 'opinion' based upon their particular view of the world is NOT the way to conduct any scientific experiment or study.

In fact one of many such studies was conducted by National Geographic. if anyone were truly interested in facts they could take the time to read the September 2004 publication of National Geographic.

The issue deals with "Global Warming" and makes predictions, based upon scientific fact. What, and how the climate will change in the next decade, and the expected repercussions.

Well a decade has passed. Each and every one of the scientific hypotheses has come to fruition.

In fact it only goes to prove that people whom replace the word 'belief' for scientific facts are really not much better than any other 'arm chair quarterback'.

People that garner any knowledge from those that are not qualified, or those that have a particular agenda are likely to be misinformed.

[Dr Keghead]

I find it both sad and amusing that many people obtain their 'scientific knowledge' from every where, except from the scientists that are directly involved in that particular field of study.

Basing 'scientific fact' by ones' own 'opinion' based upon their particular view of the world is NOT the way to conduct any scientific experiment or study.

In fact one of many such studies was conducted by National Geographic. if anyone were truly interested in facts they could take the time to read the September 2004 publication of National Geographic.

The issue deals with "Global Warming" and makes predictions, based upon scientific fact. What, and how the climate will change in the next decade, and the expected repercussions.

Well a decade has passed. Each and every one of the scientific hypotheses has come to fruition.

In fact it only goes to prove that people whom replace the word 'belief' for scientific facts are really not much better than any other 'arm chair quarterback'.

People that garner any knowledge from those that are not qualified, or those that have a particular agenda are likely to be misinformed.

1. Writers for National Geographic are not scientists... so using your own criteria, they are unqualified to report on the subject.

2. Your assertion that "each and every one of the scientific hypotheses has come to fruition" is laughable.

3. I'm a scientist and actually am working in a climate related field involving computer modeling. You?

[Cruiseman]

The issue deals with "Global Warming" and makes predictions, based upon scientific fact. What, and how the climate will change in the next decade, and the expected repercussions.

I would argue with the "scientific fact". I have never seen any "facts" or evidence, other than from flawed computer models. The only argument I have heard is that a large percentage/majority of scientists agree that global warming (aka "climate change") is real. In other words, a concensus, which is not science. It cannot be proven. It is a theory that proponents wish to promote as fact.

Here are my reasons why I don't agree with the "science":

Is the planet actually getting warmer? Maybe

I would say that is plausible, at least within our limited timeframe. To make any claims that it is warmer today than in the 1970s is irrelevent because in comparison to the age of the Earth, 50 years is insignificant.

Will the planet continue to get warmer? Possibly

Possibly, but possibly cooler. There is no scientific way to predict this. They are claiming to know that the planet will warm on average by 1 degree over the next 100 years. Yet, nobody can accurately predict the temperature in Dallas-Fort Worth three days from now. If the science of weather prediction going out, say, 10 day, was spot-on accurate, then it would help the credibility of claims 100 years from now.

If the planet does get warmer, is that a bad thing? Unclear

I have seen no evidence that a warmer planet, at least a few degrees over 100 years, would make any significant difference in the human condition. It is routinely 120 degrees in the summer time in Iraq, yet people continue to live there. That is at least 25 degrees hotter than most places (except for Texas or Arizona) in the summer. Warmer temperatures may also make crop growth possible is locations where it is currently too cold to grow crops. All things equal, global warming is probably preferable to global cooling.

Arguments that sea ice melting will cause rising sea levels really appeals to the ignorant. Float a few ice cubes in a glass full of water and when they melt, does the water overflow?

Assuming the planet is getting warmer, was it caused by man? Doubtful

The argument is that man, through the invention and application of the internal combustion engine, has caused CO2 levels to rise to dangerous levels. Often referred to as "greenhouse gasses", the theory is that the introduction of these gasses into the atmosphere are causing the planet to warm. The Earth actually contributes more to "greenhouse gasses" than man does. The 2010 volcano in Iceland spewed more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere in 4 days than as been produced by every internal combustion engine since 1900. I saw this report on a newspaper website right after the Earthquake, then a few weeks later found that the article, which was submitted by a reputable scientific laboratory, had been scrubbed from the Internet and replaced with dozens of stories debunking the theory. So, what is the truth? There's no way to tell. Once again, there's just to proof, just circumstantial evidence.

Even if global warming is real, can we stop it? No

Of this, I am totally convinced. There is nothing our ineffectual government or politicians can ever do to reverse or control the climate of the Earth. They cannot even get a website to work with 4 years and a billion dollars. To even suggest that any change in human behavior will affect the climate borderlines on foolishness.

Follow the money

Scientists wanting government grant money will find a dry well if they even consider coming out in opposition to the global warming hoax. I call it a hoax, because they are claiming something as fact, without proof. Granted, there is a "concensus", but the scientists that agree with the position are on the government teat. So the science cannot be trusted. There are too many politicians that are heavily invested in global warming. Cronies are making billions off the hoax.

Education and Indoctrination

There is no question that younger Americans and Europeans are brainwashed through public education, and the media, to believe in the religion of climate change. If you lay out the argument to older Americans, for the most part, common sense kicks in and they know BS when they hear it. But the next generation, they have been indoctrinated.

The Debate Is Over?

I remember when I first heard Al Gore say "the debate over climate change is over" thinking to myself, what debate? I never heard the debate. They declared the debate over before they ever allowed a debate on the subject. Just the fact that Al Gore is involved at all makes we question the "science".

Little or no faith in big government

How am I supposed to believe that a government unable to successfully launch a website with 4 years and billion dollars, can save the planet? They can't even find the Malaysian Air 777 that went down. And, instead of trying to protect us from 1 degree of heat over 100 years, why not do something to protect from Ebola by not allowing anyone with a West African country passport from entering the US?

And, lest you think I am a Republican taking a shot at Democrats, you are wrong. I think they are both inept and evil. The Democrats want to riddle me with bullets, the Republicans try to make the think they are my friend because they only want to put one bullet in my head. But either way, I am dead.

I have more thoughts on the subject, but I will add them later. As you can tell, I have given this quite a bit of thought.

[azsandrider]

Well said!

We have too many Sheep in our society and not enough leaders. There is no real science any longer just what whichever prevailing party in power allows to be studied they way they want it to be studied...

Most of this is the fault of the new journalists, who don't report objectively and don't investigate the facts. There is no one to hold the politicians accountable any longer now that mass media is owner by a few billionaires who use then news as a tool to push their agenda.

[Jack]

I have a simple suggestion. The United States should immediately prohibit trade with any country that does not adhere to our own clean water and clean air standards.

[remphoto]

Yeah, and those earth-friendly wackos left a mountain of trash behind after their rally. Makes it clear how serious they are about protecting the earth….

[flyerq68]

Very thoughtful analysis Cruiseman, I agree with all of it. One thing that bugs me about this subject is I live just outside Yosemite. Geologists say that Half Dome and Yosemite valley was carved out by a glacier eons ago. What caused the glacier to disappear? Of course the earth's temperature is always in flux. I don't believe for a second that there is unbiased "science" especially when it comes to something this big that government can use to put their boot on our neck.

[pearlblue1800]

1. Writers for National Geographic are not scientists... so using your own criteria, they are unqualified to report on the subject.

2. Your assertion that "each and every one of the scientific hypotheses has come to fruition" is laughable.

3. I'm a scientist and actually am working in a climate related field involving computer modeling. You?

Pray tell, where you came to the conclusion that I stated the writers for N.G. are scientist.
So I fail to comprehend how you manage to make such an unrelated connection. Insinuating that a writer of an article is somehow a scientist. LOL.

Page 14 para 4: "Scientists who assess the planets health see indisputable evidence that Earth has been getting warmer, in some cases rapidly" Farge Phd. U.S geological Survey Global Change Research Program. U of Wisconsin researcher graduate student (2003) J. Magnuson 'Sacramento River gets 12% less spring and summer snowmelt than a century ago"

Please inform the readership where one of the predictions have not come true. Eg: how many feet has the Quelccaya Glacier in Peru receded in the past decade? How many feet have the Columbia Icefields in Alberta have receded in the past decade, or for that matter have you attended Montana's Glacier national park, and made any first hand observation's as to the receding glaciers.
perhaps NASA's predictions and observations concerning the thinning of Arctic sea ice are also questionable?
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration aka NOAA " Ocean temperatures are rising in all ocean basins and at much deeper depths than previously thought"
Robert Gagosian PHD. Past president and director of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution " "too much change in Ocean temperature and salinity could disrupt the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation enough to slow down or possibly halt the conveyor belt - causing drastic climate changes in time spans as short as a decade. Sound familiar?
Have you had the opportunity to notice receeding shorelines? for instance Lake Mead USA provides everyone with an observable fact, that the water levels have significantly lowered in the past decade, let alone the previous decades.


Your comment concerning the evidence that science has provided to substantiate the climate change is your opinion.
You have failed to provide any evidence to substantiate your 'opinion'.

You may be a scientist,.
I would be very interested in reading any of your peer reviewed research papers that debunks, observable scientific fact with respect to this topic. .

Hottest Years on record are as follows: 1. 1998, 2. 2002, 3. 2003, 4. 2001, 5. 1997 as published in 2004.

Guess what since then those records are being replaced. 2010 is now in the #1 position, with the world temperatures of 2014 expected to surpass those of 2010.. Robert Gagosian Phd. past president Woods Hole.

"As a society, I believe we must face the potential for abrupt climate change.
Perhaps we can mitigate the changes. If not, at least we can still take steps to
adapt to them.
The best way to improve the effectiveness of our response is to have more
knowledge of what can happen—and how and when. Research into the causes,
patterns, likelihood, and effects of abrupt climate change can help reduce our
vulnerabilities and increase our ability to adapt.
If climate changes come abruptly, we will have less time to adjust. In other
words, the more knowledge we have—the more reliably we can predict changes—the
better our chances.
Maybe over the edge of the cliff, there’s just a three-inch drop-off. Or maybe
there’s a big, fluffy bed full of pillows. My worry is that we are indeed
approaching this cliff blindfolded"

[azsandrider]

Hottest years on record are only since records have been kept with proper instruments; about the last 100 yrs or so....But history tells us it was a few degrees hotter 2000 yrs ago then (hence Roman expansion and the fertile valleys in Scandinavia during the Viking expansion) it is now and the earth went through a minor global cooling period known as the Mini Ice Age in the 1700s (Valley Forge with the continental army was very cold) that was only 200 yrs ago.

It take 1000s of yrs, if not 100,000s of yrs to actually have a basis for a trend in Earth's climate as the Earth is around 4 billion yrs old.

20,000 yrs ago we came out of an ice age, I think it was the 5th one in the historic geological record. AND, ice core samples have found many occurrences of 'green house' gasses being very high millions of years ago and various cycles of lows & highs.

All this suggests the Earth's climate is very complex and must be studied in terms of millennium and decades or hundreds of years. Humans can't really do much to alter our climate unless we set off all the nuclear weapons at the same time.

Every year there are dozens of major volcanic eruptions that put more 'green house' gasses in the air then all of modern human society has in total, and the earth systems seem to absorb it.

By the way, no one has explained how the temps rising on mars are human caused. I wonder if the Sun has anything to do with our climate?

Climate is cyclic and we are in an upswing in temps after coming out of an ice age a relatively short time ago (20,000 yrs is not even an eye blink in the complete scale of Earth's geological history). Our climate may warm a little more or it may not. Eventually the earth will cool and have another ice age.

Before the climate scientists can tell us whether we are hotter tor cooler then normal, maybe they should figure out what normal is? The true normal would be an average temperature based on a hundred thousand years, not 30 yrs or 100 yrs like they do now.

Get back to us in 100,000 years and THEN let us know what the climate is doing...

So far the computer modeling has been so far off that there is no credibility with them any longer. Heck, wasn't Florida & New York City supposed to be under water by now per the alarmists (oopps climatologists) 20 yrs ago?

[micky]

I JUST LUV POST'S LIKE THISREADING THIS STUFF IS BETTER THAN GOING TO A PUERTO RICAN PICNIC WITH A SET OF JUMPER CABLES

[Cruiseman]

I think all the long-distance riding gives me too much free time to think about all this stuff.

[remphoto]

I think this image pretty well sums it up.

[jmohme]

The world is full of people with agendas looking for a crisis to support them. Once they find their crisis, the media jumps onboard and sensationalizes it, allowing movement will continue to grow.

I try to do my part by not supporting the media that is so quick to brainwash the public. I wouldn't even have a televisions in my house if not for the fact that my wife is hooked on brainless TV like The Big Bang. I just find other things to do when she enters that zombie state.
If enough people would quit turning on the TV, things might just start to change. but I don't see it happening. TV seems to be more addictive than hard drugs and sometimes I think it is even more dangerous.

[Lone Ranger]

Theme of the environment being used to rally people has been around since the '60s. The idea behind it is, how can anyone be against saving the environment.

[Dr Keghead]

Writers for National Geographic are not scientists... so using your own criteria, they are unqualified to report on the subject.

Pray tell, where you came to the conclusion that I stated the writers for N.G. are scientist.
So I fail to comprehend how you manage to make such an unrelated connection. Insinuating that a writer of an article is somehow a scientist. LOL.

Oh my goodness... from your initial post, which I was responding to...

I find it both sad and amusing that many people obtain their 'scientific knowledge' from every where, except from the scientists that are directly involved in that particular field of study.

In this post, you said that a person had to be a climate scientist to offer an opinion on global warming... but you then reference a publication written by someone that doesn't meet your own criteria... and that doesn't seem contradictory to you?

Good grief...

[pearlblue1800]

I would argue with the "scientific fact". I have never seen any "facts" or evidence, other than from flawed computer models. The only argument I have heard is that a large percentage/majority of scientists agree that global warming (aka "climate change") is real. In other words, a concensus, which is not science. It cannot be proven. It is a theory that proponents wish to promote as fact.

Here are my reasons why I don't agree with the "science":

Is the planet actually getting warmer? Maybe

I would say that is plausible, at least within our limited timeframe. To make any claims that it is warmer today than in the 1970s is irrelevent because in comparison to the age of the Earth, 50 years is insignificant.

Will the planet continue to get warmer? Possibly

Possibly, but possibly cooler. There is no scientific way to predict this. They are claiming to know that the planet will warm on average by 1 degree over the next 100 years. Yet, nobody can accurately predict the temperature in Dallas-Fort Worth three days from now. If the science of weather prediction going out, say, 10 day, was spot-on accurate, then it would help the credibility of claims 100 years from now.

If the planet does get warmer, is that a bad thing? Unclear

I have seen no evidence that a warmer planet, at least a few degrees over 100 years, would make any significant difference in the human condition. It is routinely 120 degrees in the summer time in Iraq, yet people continue to live there. That is at least 25 degrees hotter than most places (except for Texas or Arizona) in the summer. Warmer temperatures may also make crop growth possible is locations where it is currently too cold to grow crops. All things equal, global warming is probably preferable to global cooling.

Arguments that sea ice melting will cause rising sea levels really appeals to the ignorant. Float a few ice cubes in a glass full of water and when they melt, does the water overflow?

Assuming the planet is getting warmer, was it caused by man? Doubtful

The argument is that man, through the invention and application of the internal combustion engine, has caused CO2 levels to rise to dangerous levels. Often referred to as "greenhouse gasses", the theory is that the introduction of these gasses into the atmosphere are causing the planet to warm. The Earth actually contributes more to "greenhouse gasses" than man does. The 2010 volcano in Iceland spewed more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere in 4 days than as been produced by every internal combustion engine since 1900. I saw this report on a newspaper website right after the Earthquake, then a few weeks later found that the article, which was submitted by a reputable scientific laboratory, had been scrubbed from the Internet and replaced with dozens of stories debunking the theory. So, what is the truth? There's no way to tell. Once again, there's just to proof, just circumstantial evidence.

Even if global warming is real, can we stop it? No

Of this, I am totally convinced. There is nothing our ineffectual government or politicians can ever do to reverse or control the climate of the Earth. They cannot even get a website to work with 4 years and a billion dollars. To even suggest that any change in human behavior will affect the climate borderlines on foolishness.

Follow the money

Scientists wanting government grant money will find a dry well if they even consider coming out in opposition to the global warming hoax. I call it a hoax, because they are claiming something as fact, without proof. Granted, there is a "concensus", but the scientists that agree with the position are on the government teat. So the science cannot be trusted. There are too many politicians that are heavily invested in global warming. Cronies are making billions off the hoax.

Education and Indoctrination

There is no question that younger Americans and Europeans are brainwashed through public education, and the media, to believe in the religion of climate change. If you lay out the argument to older Americans, for the most part, common sense kicks in and they know BS when they hear it. But the next generation, they have been indoctrinated.

The Debate Is Over?

I remember when I first heard Al Gore say "No less that 18 Scientific Societies Concur that the evidence supports the factsthe debate over climate change is over" thinking to myself, what debate? I never heard the debate. They declared the debate over before they ever allowed a debate on the subject. Just the fact that Al Gore is involved at all makes we question the "science".

Little or no faith in big government

How am I supposed to believe that a government unable to successfully launch a website with 4 years and billion dollars, can save the planet? They can't even find the Malaysian Air 777 that went down. And, instead of trying to protect us from 1 degree of heat over 100 years, why not do something to protect from Ebola by not allowing anyone with a West African country passport from entering the US?

And, lest you think I am a Republican taking a shot at Democrats, you are wrong. I think they are both inept and evil. The Democrats want to riddle me with bullets, the Republicans try to make the think they are my friend because they only want to put one bullet in my head. But either way, I am dead.

I have more thoughts on the subject, but I will add them later. As you can tell, I have given this quite a bit of thought.

Here is a web site with evidence, causes, effects, consensus
.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

No less that 18 Scientific Societies Concur that there is sufficient evidence supporting the fact global warming is real.

[bikerbillone]

Global warming, climate change, whatever the liberal politics choose on a given day, it's all about politics, power, and money. In one way or another, it's deficit tax dollars that we and future generations will pay.