Global warming err Climate change HOAX

[Azalin]

 

 

Yeah. It would be. Get help. You have a lot of pent up aggression that is making you more stupid than you started off being.

 

I think you're giving him way too much credit. He's just an idiot troll with no imagination whose schtick is getting so old as to not even be entertaining anymore. He's spent. Cats eventually get tired of shredding the same toy over and over, and this toy was mangled beyond recognition long ago.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

I think you're giving him way too much credit. He's just an idiot troll with no imagination whose schtick is getting so old as to not even be entertaining anymore. He's spent. Cats eventually get tired of shredding the same toy over and over, and this toy was mangled beyond recognition long ago.

 

Probably very true.

[TH3]

I think there’s a change in weather. I am not a great believer in man-made climate change. I’m not a great believer. There is certainly a change in weather that goes — if you look, they had global cooling in the 1920s and now they have global warming, although now they don’t know if they have global warming. They call it all sorts of different things; now they’re using “extreme weather” I guess more than any other phrase. I am not — I know it hurts me with this room, and I know it’s probably a killer with this room — but I am not a believer. Perhaps there’s a minor effect, but I’m not a big believer in man-made climate change.

 

 

That is our GOP candidate...

[IDBillzFan]

Obama promised to bankrupt the coal industry back in 2008.

 

http://www.redstate.com/aglanon/2013/09/19/remember-when-obama-promised-to-bankrupt-coal-thats-tomorrow/

 

Finally a promise he may actually keep.

 

That is our GOP candidate...

 

That's not my candidate. My candidate wouldn't sound like such a dumbass.

 

Kind like your DNC candidate, who not only thinks global warming cooling climate change is not only worse than ISIS, it created ISIS.

[B-Man]

 

 

 

That is our GOP candidate...

 

 

The Convention's over ?

 

.

[Chef Jim]

I think there’s a change in weather. I am not a great believer in man-made climate change. I’m not a great believer. There is certainly a change in weather that goes — if you look, they had global cooling in the 1920s and now they have global warming, although now they don’t know if they have global warming. They call it all sorts of different things; now they’re using “extreme weather” I guess more than any other phrase. I am not — I know it hurts me with this room, and I know it’s probably a killer with this room — but I am not a believer. Perhaps there’s a minor effect, but I’m not a big believer in man-made climate change.

 

 

That is our GOP candidate...

 

It's funny (in a sad way not a ha ha way) that you can read that quote and know exactly who it's from.

[B-Man]

MOTIVE

 

 

We have been told now for almost three decades that man has to change his ways or his fossil-fuel emissions will scorch Earth with catastrophic warming. Scientists, politicians and activists have maintained the narrative that their concern is only about caring for our planet and its inhabitants. But this is simply not true. The narrative is a ruse. They are after something entirely different.

 

 

Have doubts? Then listen to the words of former United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer:

 

“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole,” said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.

 

So what is the goal of environmental policy?

 

“We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy,” said Edenhofer.

 

For those who want to believe that maybe Edenhofer just misspoke and doesn’t really mean that, consider that a little more than five years ago he also said that “the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.”

 

 

Edenhofer’s comments are consistent with other alarmists who have spilled the movement’s dirty secret. Last year, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, made a similar statement.

 

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said in anticipation of last year’s Paris climate summit.

 

 

 

Everyone agrees with conservation and cleaning up the environment,

 

however, most thinking people recognize (even after decades of one-sided propaganda) that the "climate change" movement is not honest.

 

False projections, false temperature readings, an obvious refusal to re-evaluate previous findings (see "The SCIENCE IS SETTLED) just confirms what is self-evident.

 

 

Yes, the climate changes, yes we need to clean up the environment,

 

it will NOT be accomplished by the forced payoff of Billions from the 'wealthy' countries, nor the ignoring of updated scientific research

 

 

 

.

 

.

Edited March 30, 2016 by B-Man

[truth on hold]

Those awful professors part of AL Gore's vast conspiracy network are at it again, with their science and facts to back up their forecasts. Ought to be ashamed of themselves.

 

"Sea levels could rise nearly twice as much as previously predicted by the end of this century if carbon dioxide emissions continue unabated, an outcome that could devastate coastal communities around the globe, according to new research published Wednesday.

 

The main reason? Antarctica.

 

The projection nearly doubles prior estimates of sea level rise, which had relied on a minimal contribution from Antarctica, said Rob DeConto of University of Massachusetts, Amherst, who authored the study with David Pollard of Penn State University.

 

People should not look at this as a futuristic scenario of things that may or may not happen. They should look at it as the tragic story we are following right now, said Eric Rignot, an expert on Antarcticas ice sheet and an earth sciences professor at the University of California, Irvine"

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/03/30/antarctic-loss-could-double-expected-sea-level-rise-by-2100-scientists-say/

[DC Tom]

Those awful professors part of AL Gore's vast conspiracy network are at it again, with their science and facts to back up their forecasts. Ought to be ashamed of themselves.

"Sea levels could rise nearly twice as much as previously predicted by the end of this century if carbon dioxide emissions continue unabated, an outcome that could devastate coastal communities around the globe, according to new research published Wednesday.

The main reason? Antarctica.

The projection nearly doubles prior estimates of sea level rise, which had relied on a minimal contribution from Antarctica, said Rob DeConto of University of Massachusetts, Amherst, who authored the study with David Pollard of Penn State University.

People should not look at this as a futuristic scenario of things that may or may not happen. They should look at it as the tragic story we are following right now, said Eric Rignot, an expert on Antarcticas ice sheet and an earth sciences professor at the University of California, Irvine"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/03/30/antarctic-loss-could-double-expected-sea-level-rise-by-2100-scientists-say/

The new prediction is twice the old prediction.

 

Pardon...UP TO twice the old prediction.

 

So the old prediction is wrong.

 

But this one is right. Even though it's ridiculously ambiguous ("...up to...")

 

So ultimately, the settled science is "We can't make a meaningful !@#$ing prediction."

 

 

 

 

I was wrong. Global warming isn't a religion. It's even worse: it's sociology.

[unbillievable]

If nothing happens, it would still be "up to" twice the previous prediction.

 

I think I'm starting to understand how "settled" science work. I predict that the Bills will win up to 16 games this season.

[Greg F]

Those awful professors part of AL Gore's vast conspiracy network are at it again...

The 'it must be a conspiracy' to not be true argument is a false dichotomy. Eugenics happened and there was no 'conspiracy', now explain that Einstein. The late Thomas Gold witnessed the no need for a conspiracy phenomenon first hand. He labeled it the "herd instinct". Even more recently was Marshall and Warren frustrating battle to convince the 'experts' of their cure for ulcers. I don't suppose you ever heard the quote "Science advances one funeral at a time" by a guy named Max Plank. I am guessing you never heard of him. He won the 1918 Nobel prize in physics for his work in quantum theory. I suspect he knew a thing or two about how the politics of the scientific community works and thus the quote.

 

... with their science and facts to back up their forecasts.

The output of failed computer models are not "facts".

 

Ought to be ashamed of themselves.

They ought a be. For more than 20 years the rate of rise has been 3.3 mm/year. The sea level has been rising for the last 20,000 years. The fact it is rising is no surprise to anybody. To put into perspective how silly their 2 meters by 2100 is the sea level rise would have to go up to 23 mm/year starting now.

 

 

"Sea levels could rise nearly twice as much as previously predicted by the end of this century if carbon dioxide emissions continue unabated, an outcome that could devastate coastal communities around the globe, according to new research published Wednesday.

Typical weasel words. Then again there is no evidence outside of the computer models that indicate it will. Good thing we don't live in a computer model.

 

The main reason? Antarctica.

Except for one problem, Antarctic has been gaining ice. And finally, the loss of ice in the Thwaites Glacier appears to have nothing to do with climate change.

 

Using radar techniques to map how water flows under ice sheets, UTIG researchers were able to estimate ice melting rates and thus identify significant sources of geothermal heat under Thwaites Glacier. They found these sources are distributed over a wider area and are much hotter than previously assumed.

 

The geothermal heat contributed significantly to melting of the underside of the glacier, and it might be a key factor in allowing the ice sheet to slide, affecting the ice sheet's stability and its contribution to future sea level rise.

[/dev/null]

If nothing happens, it would still be "up to" twice the previous prediction.

 

I think I'm starting to understand how "settled" science work. I predict that the Bills will win up to 16 games this season.

Your model is flawed as it does not take into account all of the variables

 

I predict the Bills will win up to 19 games this season

Edited March 31, 2016 by /dev/null

[DC Tom]

Your model is flawed as it does not take into account all of the variables

 

I predict the Bills will win up to 19 games this season

 

I believe your model overstates the sensitivity of the team to the forcing effect of methane emissions (i.e. the "Rob Ryan" effect.)

[B-Man]

US Law Should Now Prohibit Funding to UN Climate Change Convention

 

On Dec. 18, 2015, the Palestinian Authority deposited its instrument of accession to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). In accordance with Article 23(2) of the treaty, the Palestinians officially became the 197th party to the UNFCCC on March 17, 2016—ninety days after depositing their instrument of accession

.

As was the case when the Palestinians joined the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in 2011, this event should trigger provisions in U.S. law that will prohibit any future U.S. funding to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

 

The Obama administration requested $13 million for the UNFCCC in the 2017 fiscal year. It is unclear if the prohibition would also include much larger U.S. contributions to the Green Climate Fund, which is a mechanism under the UNFCC framework to assist developing countries in adapting to and mitigating the predicted consequences of climate change.

 

The UNFCCC is an international treaty negotiated in 1992 designed to facilitate efforts to arrest increases in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions believed to contribute to global warming. It was the basis for the Kyoto Protocol and subsequent efforts such as the recently adopted Paris Agreement so that UNFCCC members will reduce their GHG emissions.

Current U.S. law contains two restrictions that prohibit U.S. funds from going to any international organization that admits Palestine as a member state.

 

Specifically, U.S. Code Title 22, Section 287e, states:

 

“No funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or any other Act shall be available for the United Nations or any specialized agency thereof which accords the Palestine Liberation Organization the same standing as member states.” (Adopted as Public Law 101-246 in 1990.)

“The United States shall not make any voluntary or assessed contribution: (1) to any affiliated organization of the United Nations which grants full membership as a state to any organization or group that does not have the internationally recognized attributes of statehood, or (2) to the United Nations, if the United Nations grants full membership as a state in the United Nations to any organization or group that does not have the internationally recognized attributes of statehood, during any period in which such membership is effective.” (Adopted as Public Law 103-236 in 1994.)

 

 

The language in these provisions is clear and provides no waiver.

 

The U.S. has not provided any funding to UNESCO since 2011. However, the Obama administration has repeatedly urged Congress to amend the law to allow continued funding for UNESCO. Now that the Palestinians have joined the UNFCCC, which is central to the international climate change effort, the Obama administration can be expected to double its efforts to change the law.

 

The purpose of U.S. membership in international organizations is to advance American interests. When a U.N. body threatens key U.S. interests, the U.S. should send a clear signal about the ramifications

 

 

more at the link: http://dailysignal.com/2016/03/24/us-law-should-now-prohibit-funding-to-un-climate-change-convention/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=thftwitter

[truth on hold]

Yeap you clowns are right. So obsessed are the left with taking away your right to drive a 10 mile/gallon RV 2 blocks to seven eleven, they actually altered the laws of the physical universe to make carbon retain heat from the sun that would otherwise go back into space.

Edited March 31, 2016 by truth on hold

[Azalin]

Yeap you clowns are right. So obsessed are the left with taking away your right to drive a 10 mile/gallon RV 2 blocks to seven eleven, they actually altered the laws of the physical universe to make carbon retain heat from the sun that would otherwise go back into space.

 

The amount of obtuse you can pack into two sentences is rather impressive.

[Nanker]

Why worry? Volcanoes will save us. #SO²

[DC Tom]

Yeap you clowns are right. So obsessed are the left with taking away your right to drive a 10 mile/gallon RV 2 blocks to seven eleven, they actually altered the laws of the physical universe to make carbon retain heat from the sun that would otherwise go back into space.

 

You ought to consider changing your screen name to "truth is buried in a shallow unmarked grave."

[Greg F]

You ought to consider changing your screen name to "truth is buried in a shallow unmarked grave."

I think boy genius is in a bit over his head but I am willing to help him out.

 

Behold ... a picture of carbon.

 

[TH3]

Finally a promise he may actually keep.

 

That's not my candidate. My candidate wouldn't sound like such a dumbass.

 

Kind like your DNC candidate, who not only thinks global warming cooling climate change is not only worse than ISIS, it created ISIS.

Not a D voter or supporter...if you recall my position has been for years that the GOP has lost it and the result is gong to be Hillary