Climate Change Deniers: step forward and be counted.

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by InTheFlesh1980
 



Exclusively Americans? It took me 3 minutes to find data to refute you. I guess you can scratch item 4 off your OP.


You mean it took you 3 minutes to reference an article that is (also) over 24 months old!

Keep swinging, Bucko.



And 5)Chasing Ice?!
edit on 9/27/2013 by SquirrelNutz because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 02:04 PM
link   
It's the Sun.



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 02:04 PM
link   
The real problem - and I'm pretty concerned about the lack of emphasis on this based, on the summary of the WG1 - though of course we have yet to see the other WG summaries and the full report - is that increasing CO2 won't kill millions, rising sea levels won't kill millions, warmer nights and hotter days won't kill millions.

But floods and droughts will.

The real issue, IMO, is precipitation pattern change. Whether that is entirely natural or, as I believe, based on all available evidence, caused by human activities (like deforestation) what the IPCC should be doing, I think, is highlighting this.

Remember, IPCC is the International Panel on Climate Change. Not Global Warming. Not Anthropogenic Global Warming. But Climate Change. The elephant .....
edit on 27-9-2013 by AndyMayhew because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 02:10 PM
link   

seeker1963
Exactly! How many people that believe this have any knowledge whatsoever about the United Nations backed "AGENDA 21"????



Principle 15
In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.



Principle 16
National authorities should endeavour to promote the internalization of environmental costs and the use of economic instruments, taking into account the approach that the polluter should, in principle, bear the cost of pollution, with due regard to the public interest and without distorting international trade and investment.


Source

Fun stuff.

Is the climate changing? Yeah, I am pretty sure of that. Is it within "normal" limits? I remain unconvinced we even know what "normal" is in a meaningful span of time. Does mankinds interaction on the planet cause some percentage of environmental impact? I would say yes. Is it the sole source of all environmental changes in this arena? I think the evidence is dubious at best, with WAY too much conflicts of interest.

Of course, according to these principles, there doesnt need to be an actual evidence to take action, implement taxes, implement "high density living areas," etc. So, there ya go.



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by SquirrelNutz
 


How much UN Kool-Aid have you been sipping on SquirrelNutz? Obviously more than your fair share I think.

The UN is nothing more than a radically political left wing bunch of Moon-bats that think humans can solve climate change by taxing them into the Stone Age for absolutely no reason.

Feel free to shovel your shock and awe BS somewhere else. Intelligent people aren't buying it. The outcome of this report was known prior to its release as simply a backup to their cherry picked bogus data the first time around. I ask you, where has Al Gore been lately??

You true believers just don't have any idea of what you speak. In as much as one would like to believe the numbers from the UN, you must remember one simple fact. Politicians are liars which begets the phrase
" Figgers lie, and Liars Figger"



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 02:14 PM
link   

SquirrelNutz
reply to post by InTheFlesh1980
 



There is simply not enough data to support claims on either side.

The earth is estimated to be over 4.5 billion years old. We have *accurate* climate data for perhaps a few hundred years, probably less. In fact, the data gets far too vague the further back you go.


Are you for real? "a few hundred years"?!

Here's that science gap, rearing it's ulgy head.

The reality is just the opposite. We can actually look back, quite accurately, as far back as 800,000 (eight hundred thousand) Years!. [Ice Cores ]


edit on 9/27/2013 by SquirrelNutz because: (no reason given)



So what?? I suppose human beings were responsible for those occurrences too?
It's time for your daily dose of UN Kool-Aid Squirrely.



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by SquirrelNutz
 


You mean it took you 3 minutes to reference an article that is (also) over 24 months old!

Keep swinging, Bucko.

You exhibit an unproductive method of discourse and debate.

Each time you are presented with information to refute your claims, you simply deny the existence or authenticity of that which has been presented.

Further, you smatter an OP with some YouTube videos as your "science", then self-righteously declare every dissenting opinion and/or scientific piece of evidence to be "rhetoric".

You are no longer esteemed as reasonable nor scientific in any way, and have revealed the shallow depth of your ability to defend your point of view.

These are hollow tactics unbecoming of the learned, and anyone can use them to the same degree of ineffectiveness as you have. I do not parley with such.



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 02:15 PM
link   
George Carlin once said and I quote:

You got people like this around you? Country is full of them now! People walking around all day long, every minute of the day — worried about EVERYTHING! Worried about the air, worried about the water, worried about the soil. Worried about insecticides, pesticides, food additives, carcinogens; worried about radon gas; worried about asbestos. Worried about saving endangered species.

Let me tell you about endangered species, all right? Saving endangered species is just one more arrogant attempt by humans to control Nature! It's arrogant meddling! It's what got us into trouble in the first place! Doesn't anybody understand that? Interfering with Nature! Over 90 percent.. over... way over 90 percent of all the species that have ever lived — EVER LIVED — on this planet are gone. Whissshht! They are extinct!

We didn't kill them all.

They just... disappeared! That's what Nature does! They disappear these days at the rate of 25 a day, and I mean regardless of our behavior. Irrespective of how we act on this planet, 25 species that were here today, will be gone tomorrow! Let them go... gracefully! Leave Nature alone! Haven't we done enough?

We're so self-important. So self-important! Everybody's going to save something now. "Save the trees; save the bees; save the whales; save those snails." And the greatest arrogance of all, "Save the planet." WHAT? Are these #ing people kidding me? Save the planet? We don't even know how to take care of ourselves yet. We haven't learned how to care for one another, we're gonna save the #ing planet?

I'm getting tired of that #. Tired of that #. Tired! I'm tired of #ing Earth Day! I'm tired of these self-righteous environmentalists; these white, bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is there aren't enough bicycle paths. People trying to make the world safe for their Volvos. Besides, environmentalists don't give a # about the planet. They don't care about the planet. Not in the abstract they don't. Not in the abstract they don't. You know what they're interested in? A clean place to live. Their own habitat. They're worried that some day in the future, they might be personally inconvenienced. Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn't impress me.

Besides, there is nothing wrong with the planet. Nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine. The PEOPLE are #ed. Difference. Difference! The planet is fine. Compared to the people, the planet is doing great. Been here four and a half billion years. Did you ever think about the arithmetic? The planet has been here four and a half billion years. We've been here, what? A hundred thousand? Maybe two hundred thousand? And we've only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over two hundred years. Two hundred years versus four and a half billion. And we have the CONCEIT to think that somehow we're a threat? That somehow we're gonna put in jeopardy this beautiful little blue-green ball that's just a-floatin' around the sun?

The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through all kinds of things worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles; hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors; worlwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages... And we think some plastic bags, and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet... the planet... the planet isn't going anywhere. WE ARE!



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 02:16 PM
link   

We're going away. Pack your #, folks. We're going away. And we won't leave much of a trace, either. Thank God for that. Maybe a little styrofoam. Maybe. A little styrofoam. The planet will be here and we'll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet will shake us off like a bad case of fleas. A surface nuisance.

You wanna know how the planet is doing? Ask those people at Pompeii, who are frozen into position from volcanic ash, "How the planet's doing?" You wanna know if the planet's all right, ask those people in Mexico City or Armenia or a hundred other places buried under thousands of tons of earthquake rubble, if they feel like a threat to the planet this week. Or how about those people in Kilowaia, Hawaii, who built their homes right next to an active volcano, and then wonder why they have lava in the living room.

The planet will be here for a long, long — LONG — time after we're gone, and it will heal itself; it will cleanse itself, because that's what it does. It's a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover; the earth will be renewed; and, if it's true that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new pardigm: the Earth plus plastic! The Earth doesn't share our prejudice towards plastic. Plastic came out of the Earth. The Earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the Earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn't know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old philosophical question, "Why are we here?" "Plastic! Assholes."

So! So, the plastic is here, our job is done, we can be phased out now. And I think that it has already started already, don't you? I think, to be fair, the planet probably sees us as a mild threat. Something to be dealt with. And I am sure the planet will defend itself in the manner of a large organism, like a beehive or an ant colony, and muster a defense. I am sure the planet will think of something. What would you do if you were the planet trying to defend against this pesky, troublesome species? "Let's see... What might... Hmm.. Viruses! Viruses might be good. They seem vulnerable to viruses. And, uh...viruses are tricky, always mutating and forming new strains whenever a vaccine is developed. Perhaps, this first virus could be one that compromises the immune system of these creatures. Perhaps a human immunodeficiency virus, making them vulnerable to all sorts of other diseases and infections that might come along. And maybe it could be spread sexually, making them a little reluctant to engage in the act of reproduction."

Well, that's a poetic note. And it's a start. And I can dream, can't I? See I don't worry about the little things: bees, trees, whales, snails. I think we're part of a greater wisdom than we will ever understand. A higher order. Call it what you want. Know what I call it? The Big Electron." The Big Electron...whoooa. Whoooa. Whoooa. It doesn't punish; it doesn't reward; it doesn't judge at all. It just is. And so are we. For a little while.

Thanks for being here with me for a little while tonight!

Thank you!



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by SquirrelNutz
 



I'm not american so probably do not qualify one way or the other.

Let's start with your 'North Pole is now a lake' picture.

Not the North Pole. Not a lake.

This is how the same area (more then 300 miles east of the Pole) looked liked only three days after the picture in the OP was taken.



and map that shows the postion of the buoy farm with the webcam by the time the pic was taken.



and an article in the NYT by Andrew Revkin (knowledgeable chap, has been there himself) that explains what you're looking at.



A closer look

Ponds of meltwater form routinely on Arctic Ocean sea ice in the summer. The sea ice is floating on the Arctic Ocean and in constant motion. The autonomous camera that took these images was placed on the ice a few dozen miles from the North Pole in early spring, but has since drifted hundreds of miles.


NPOE website (the people operating the buoy farm)

You could still edit the the OP.

edit on 27-9-2013 by talklikeapirat because: polar opposite



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by InTheFlesh1980
 



Each time you are presented with information to refute your claims, you simply deny the existence or authenticity of that which has been presented.


And, how exactly are you not guilty of the exact same tactic you accuse me of?

Please show me where my information has been disproven or shown to be fabricated. I'm listening (seriously)



Further, you smatter an OP with some YouTube videos as your "science", then self-righteously declare every dissenting opinion and/or scientific piece of evidence to be "rhetoric".



Once again. I am only responding to those posts that say: It's a scam, the UN is a Liberal left-wing bladity-blah, drink the koolaid, Squirrel, etc... Without any supporting arguments of their own. THAT is rhetoric.

Not self-righteous at all. CONFUSED AS HELL.
edit on 9/27/2013 by SquirrelNutz because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by talklikeapirat
 


Thanks. I will.

Now.... the other two pictures that accompanied the 'North Pole Lake' photo?



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by SquirrelNutz
 


I did a thread on this topic not long ago. Since I wasn't looking for a fight, it got very little air time.
But it does sum up my position on the subject.

It's sad that one must be right at all costs.

But keep it up, you are providing the offence for the defense to keep the dumbass game playing.

Lord knows we shouldn't actually try to do something about pollution in favor of funding Al Gores polar bear reserve.

Baaaaa



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by SquirrelNutz
 


1) The report fingers humans as the most likely cause....and that their previous estimates were minimally 30% overestimated...
2) The report also states there has been a 17 year plateau the UK MET says 20 by 2017, and the North Pole lake really?....Lake
3)Evidence of what exactly?
4) not really a point...
5) Ice caps grew an amazing 60% Ice Caps

When are climate change crowers going to accept that there simply isn't enough data to conclusively say one way or another....
edit on 27-9-2013 by ParanoidAmerican because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by SquirrelNutz
 


You've provided no link or citation for the 'all scientists agree chart'. If you do so, you will find two survey studies of peer-reviewed scientific papers on climate change, one by Naomie Oreske, the other by John Cook. The first one is not worth discussing.

The John Cook et al study is close to retraction due to major methodology errors. Before you link the study or cite form it make sure you understand exactly what they did, how they did it and why.

Note

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. So, yes, it is the evidence that persuades me whether a theory is right or wrong, and no, I could not care less what the 'consensus' says."
- Richard Feyman

You could also ask Einstein, Alfred Wegner or Galileo what they think about consensus.

edit on 27-9-2013 by talklikeapirat because: cawg



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by ParanoidAmerican
 



2) Ignore the lake (no longer there) - what about the peer-reviewed article and temp data?
3) That water levels are rising - I though that was obvious
4) Actually it is - almost exclusively right wing Americans object to the climate change argument
5) Well, even if true, glaciers didn't and they hold roughly 80% of the earth's fresh water...






posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by talklikeapirat
 


I'm checking into your "Glossary" now (for starters) - lotta info there.



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 02:45 PM
link   
So the Earth has 'Warmed' a fraction of a single degree in 150 years?

Where I come from, we call that remarkable climate stability.

Add that to recent years of global temperatures cooling (Hey, that Hockey Stick is facing backwards!) and what do we have?

A faith-based belief unsupported by science: GloBull Warming.



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 02:52 PM
link   
So, what I'm gathering from all of this... ergo, the handful of people that have decided to participate in this thread...

Is that, more than 9/11, JFK, the Moon Landing, Area 51, Flouride in the water, the Easter bunny, Santa, and Jesus... Global Warming is the biggest conspiracy to ever hit mankind. Ever.

That about right?



posted on Sep, 27 2013 @ 02:59 PM
link   
The climate isn't changing because there really is no climate. Want proof? Say "climate" out load a dozen times, then ask yourself it it's even a real word.

The sky is falling or at least going sideways, I rest my case.

TGIF





new topics
top topics
 
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join