Calls To Imprison "Climate Change Deniers" Grow In The Wake Of Hurricane Irma

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Gothmog

The link takes me to a freakin Google search

You figured that out all by yourself?

But....none of the aforementioned links state man-made before 2000 .

False. This one is from 1975, and was correct.

Once this happens, the exponential rise in the atmospheric carbon dioxide content will tend to become a significant factor and by early in the next century will have driven the mean planetary temperature beyond the limits experienced during the last 1000 years.

www.jstor.org...

1990

And many dozens more. Anthropogenic CO2 has been linked to warming (and the resultant climate change) for many decades.

Yeah , I moused over the link . But took the clickbait anyway . Shame on ya .And shame on me.
Did you read my entire post ? No , you didnt as usual....
If you had , I acknowledged Global Warming before 2000 . I also stated just as many were predicting Global Cooling and/or up to another mini Ice Age. Their is a good argument for the latter as well . example - 24,000 years ago. Read up.
I stated that the Man Made part was not a part of the reasoning before...
Why concentrate on one line taken out of context ?
You are better than that...

a reply to: Gothmog

I also stated just as many were predicting Global Cooling and/or up to another mini Ice Age.

That is false. Far more were concerned about warming than cooling.

I stated that the Man Made part was not a part of the reasoning before...

And that is false.

Wow, you follow classic SJW tactics exactly!


First you claimed that they don't call for the arrest of climate deniers.

That was a lie.


Then you moved the goalpost by claiming that you didn't lie since they only call for the prosecution of influential climate deniers.

That's doubling down


Then you claim that I am lying by not reposting the entire article while refuting you.

That's projecting.


Well, you are certainly a lost cause. I guess there's not much point trying to discuss things with you further.

a reply to: FlapdoodleStork

First you claimed that the y don't call for the arrest of climate deniers.

That is a lie. Where did I such a blanket claim?

This is my first post
www.abovetopsecret.com...

This is my second:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Gothmog

just to add to the conversation

wattsupwiththat.com...

Naomi Oreskes did not "prove" that Exxon Mobile lied. She took their research out of context to the time period in question.

In 1982, when the world was still trying to come to grips with global cooling but some researcher were expressing concerned about CO2 and global warming...

However, the memo notes: ‘It must be realized that there is great uncertainty in the existing climatic models because of a poor understanding of the atmospheric/terrestrial/oceanic CO2 balance’ [82]. Likewise, an internal briefing on the ‘CO2 “Greenhouse” Effect’ from 1982 states: ‘There is currently no unambiguous scientific evidence that the earth is warming. If the earth is on a warming trend, we’re not likely to detect it before 1995’ (see table 3). Yet, the authors say, ‘Our best estimate is that doubling of the current concentration could increase average global temperature by about 1.3 °C to 3.1 °C’ [83]. Several internal documents make this distinction, acknowledging that increased CO2 would likely cause warming, while expressing (reasonable) doubt that warming was already underway and large enough to be detected.

Read the comments under the article, it is extremely illuminating.

Further, can anyone tell me, if EXXON MOBILE had taken out front page news in every newspaper everywhere around the world, expressing their concern about the burning of fossil fuels.....

would anyone had said, lets stop this insanity right now. NO coal (no steam), NO cars, No trucks, no agriculturals tractors, ect ect ect.

24,000 years ago , there was a mini Ice Age. Covered North America in 2 feet of Ice down to almost Houston Texas.
What happened ? The CO2 levels shot up and the world did heat up. Then "overnight" there was a tremendous drop in temps caused by the very same CO2 . And the rest was history....
Did man cause that one ?
Do folks do any research at all ?
Or do they just blindly follow what they want to follow ? That is extremely dangerous as history shows (i.e. Stalin , Hitler , etc.)
Never keep a mind so closed nothing new can enter...

a reply to: Gothmog

24,000 years ago , there was a mini Ice Age. Covered North America in 2 feet of Ice down to almost Houston Texas.

24,000 years ago we were in the midst of a full blown glacial period. Hardly "mini", it lasted a good long time. A glacial period, which due to orbital and axial conditions, ended about 10,000 years ago. It ended over a period of several thousand years.

Did man cause that one ?

No. Do you think that means that anthropogenic CO2 cannot affect global temperatures? Why do you think that? Sounds closed minded to me. But that's not a crime.

originally posted by: ADSE255
a reply to: Gothmog

Yup, that's true. I just know Gore is a liar, not even his wife could stand him. He's pushing his agenda, but it's not working in his favor this time because his latest movie failed miserably. You would think a billion dollars of stolen cash would be enough for that guy. Some people are never happy.

I am still up in the air as to Global Warming . However , it is the reasoning behind it I have questions on . This Earth is HUGE and has its own fail-safes in place.
Gore just pushes his own money and power hungry driven agendas. He took an idea from the UN and ran with it.
As I stated in another post , there was a mini Ice Age around 24000 years ago that covered North America in 2 feet of ice up to nearly Houston Texas. The RESEARCHED cause ? The very same CO2 levels caused a massive drop in temps..
But folks continue spouting uncertain facts just because it sounds good....

a reply to: Gothmog

The very same CO2 levels caused a massive drop in temps..

Source?
CO2 concentrations are higher now than they have been in more than 800,000 years.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Gothmog

I also stated just as many were predicting Global Cooling and/or up to another mini Ice Age.

That is false. Far more were concerned about warming than cooling.

I stated that the Man Made part was not a part of the reasoning before...

And that is false.

And you find your facts where ?
Everything I have read states entirely what I posted
Yes , a lot of folks were on the Global Warming side. Remember why ?
No , no you dont...
We use a different AC system now.
Hint , hint.....
But I leave you with your preconceived certainties
Because :
"Some folks , if they dont know , you cant tell them" - Louis Armstrong
If you are not better than that , I am

a reply to: Gothmog

And you find your facts where ?

From searching for papers prior to 1990 which talk about cooling vs those which talk about warming and CO2. And reading them. Where do you "find" yours?

We use a different AC system now.

What?
Air conditioning? That works pretty much the same as it ever did.

a reply to: Phage

no, the use of CFC's was banned in the 1990s under the montreal protocol.

In my opinion, it has been proved that CFC's did not affect the ozone layer as advertised. The ozone layer thins and thickens in response to temperature and solar winds. It was just another scam.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Oh.
See, I didn't get the connection because I thought we were talking about global warming. That doesn't have much to do with O3 depletion.

a reply to: Gothmog

I wouldn't doubt there's an ice age is coming, probably why they're telling everybody global warming is coming. The whole thing is a big joke, as they laugh all the way to bank. The only losers will be the ones who wouldn't listen to reason.

a reply to: ADSE255

I wouldn't doubt there's an ice age is coming,

Technically, we are in an "ice age" and have been for several million years, at least. But there is, indeed, another glacial period on the way. Current estimates range from about 5,000 to 10,000 years from now. So, you're not gonna win and I'm not gonna lose on that one.

a reply to: Phage

I meant the kind of ice age that makes you freeze your balls off, 24/7.

a reply to: ADSE255

That's not an ice age. That mostly has to do with personal choice. Some people live in the Arctic. I choose to avoid such climates. I expect that will be easier to do in the future, but there are downsides to that.

But you raise a point. All too often those who are "skeptical" about climate change really know very little about it. That's ok, ignorance is not a crime and is reversible.

a reply to: Phage

Living through an ice is a personal choice? I had no idea other than migrating towards the half it doesn't hit. I'll definitely remember that when it hits half the planet. But you know, I kinda like snow so I think I'll stay where I am.

It's really hard not to be skeptical when you've been lied to so often by so called said experts, though. Without skeptics we'd all be thought drones.

a reply to: ADSE255

Living through an ice is a personal choice?

No. Choosing not to live in the Arctic is a personal choice. No one has ever lived through an ice age, even if they weren't on the ice.

It's really hard not to be skeptical when you've been lied to so often by so called said experts, though.

What makes you think you've been lied to by climate scientists? "Climategate?" Perhaps you should explore that a bit more deeply.

Without skeptics we'd all be thought drones.

Not really. For the most part popular opinion overrules skeptics. For example, I'm highly skeptical that solar activity has much effect on earthquakes. That doesn't seem to keep a lot of people from believing otherwise in spite of a lack of evidence to support their position. Popular opinion said that the Sun goes around the Earth. Certain skeptics said, "but, what about this...evidence."

On the other hand, when it comes to climate, the science and evidence really do indicate that human activity has a profound effect. See the difference? There really is one.

a reply to: Phage

I'm just wondering , why do you believe everything you read?

a reply to: ADSE255

You weren't paying attention. I don't believe everything I read.

For example. I don't believe that solar activity has a significant effect on earthquakes. And I read that a lot. Often right here on ATS.