State of the Union 2014 -- Addressing the Propaganda: "Climate Change"

reply to post by nixie_nox


And neither can the believers, We have only been on this rock for a short time there is no proof either way to prove who is right.

nixie_nox
reply to post by neo96

 

You skipped the day they taught reading comprehension at school,,,huh?

The whole second part of the article that you posted, was how those sites were only proposed, many were dead, and that it was up to governments and politicians to decide if they really want them.

Yeah someone skipped reading comprehension.

But hey whatever tow the party line.

That makes everything 'right'.

reply to post by thesaneone


See my original response on this thread about the excuse " no enough evidence".

nixie_nox

I would love to know what trillions and billions of dollars are being bilked from citizens.

The UN is getting trillions to fight "climate change". That money doesn't grow on trees, it comes from citizens' pockets.

reply to post by nixie_nox

Except that it is in the government's own best interest to not have GW.

What a effing joke.

Government only does what they want in their own interest.

That is abundantly clear.

The disasters and health issues that are being created and will be created will cost far more than any revenue that can be had from GW. We are looking at costs into the trillions.

Yeah well the way I see it that man caused disaster called the US government does worse that costs more revenue, that is currently costing this nation TRILLIONS.

So any argument about wanting regulation and making money from imaginary taxes and carbon credits will be far offset by the trillions it will cost to clean up after disasters.

Imaginary taxes ?

Looked at the GD price of gas lately, or the cost of heating and cooling homes.

The increase of goods and services across the board from them so called 'imaginary' taxes.

neo96

nixie_nox
reply to post by neo96

 

You skipped the day they taught reading comprehension at school,,,huh?

The whole second part of the article that you posted, was how those sites were only proposed, many were dead, and that it was up to governments and politicians to decide if they really want them.

Yeah someone skipped reading comprehension.

But hey whatever tow the party line.

That makes everything 'right'.

Didn't realize that reading comprehension was a party issue.

Fortunately, that is a problem that is easily remedied with a few continuing education courses.

amazing
reply to post by ElohimJD

 

and what do moderates and independents want?

It would stand to reason that moderates would want a more balanced level of freedom and equality (neither left or right).

While Independents I have found tend to be so to avoid a "label" as right or left and want to make choices based on the content of the presenter rather than preexisting bias towards one or the other. They can be either right, left or moderate from one topic to another, something like freedom in markets, but equality in schools is a common split.

The spectrum exists for all topics, and where you land on a certain topic is never fixed, but rather established by the mind of the individual.

God Bless,

OMsk3ptic

nixie_nox

I would love to know what trillions and billions of dollars are being bilked from citizens.

The UN is getting trillions to fight "climate change". That money doesn't grow on trees, it comes from citizens' pockets.

If you are going to make a claim like that, you need to back it up. What part of the UN is getting trillions of dollars from citizens..how?

reply to post by ElohimJD

Your source's misunderstanding and misinterpretation of several phenomena is pretty strong but the idea that varying levels of cosmic radiation affect cloud formation has been around for a while. There is, however, not much evidence to support it.

Regarding the study by Knudsen and Riisager. They find a correlation between the strength of the magnetic field and precipitation at low latitudes. It is important to remember that correlation does not necessarily imply causation. But whether or not cosmic rays influence cloud formation, there is a problem in associating the current warming trend with the decrease in the strength of the magnetic field based on that notion.

The idea is that an increase in cosmic radiation (due to a weakened magnetic field) may lead to increased cloudiness and therefore precipitation. Now, precipitation comes from low level clouds. Low level clouds reflect light back into space. This would result in a cooling effect, not a warming effect. In fact there are geo-engineering proposals about enhancing the ability of low level clouds to do this in order to counteract warming due to CO2.

reply to post by nixie_nox


I reread and it still means nothing.

How do they know what the weather patterns were like before humans? sure they can guess but doesn't make them right, hell they are still learning about the oceans.

Phage
reply to post by ElohimJD

 

Your source's misunderstanding and misinterpretation of several phenomena is pretty strong but the idea that varying levels of cosmic radiation affect cloud formation has been around for a while. There is, however, not much evidence to support it.

Regarding the study by Knudsen and Riisager. They find a correlation between the strength of the magnetic field and precipitation at low latitudes. It is important to remember that correlation does not necessarily imply causation. But Whether or not cosmic rays influence cloud formation, there is a problem in associating the current warming trend with the decrease in the strength of the magnetic field.

The idea is that an increase in cosmic radiation (due to a weakened magnetic field) may lead to increased cloudiness and therefore precipitation. Now, precipitation comes from low level clouds. Low level clouds reflect light back into space. This would result in a cooling effect, not a warming effect. In fact there are geo-engineering proposals about enhance the ability of low level clouds to do this in order to counteract warming due to CO2.

edit on 1/31/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Thanks again Phage. I'll add your thoughts to my notes.

God Bless,

reply to post by nixie_nox

Didn't realize that reading comprehension was a party issue.

Yeah it is especially since some people get their talking points from whatever the current administration says.

Then just regurgitate what ever it says.

Fortunately, that is a problem that is easily remedied with a few continuing education courses.

Nope there is no remedy for that.

marg6043
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

Well I guess here in the south will have to give a finger to all the profiteers of clima change as we are experiencing one of the coldest winters in decades

The irony, I guess here in the south people will be calling Obama a liar once again.

Looking outside your window and seeing snow does not mean there is no climate change. Nor does it disprove Global Warming. It does illustrate why it is now referred to as climate change however i.e. People look out their window and are then incapable of seeing the Global picture.

reply to post by nixie_nox


I guess I am a . . . what you call us that have seen snow here in the south, yeah a "simpleton", it wasn't snow and ice what we got this week it powdered and crystal sugar, my bad I am such a simpleton I can not tell between the two.

BTW I am just making a joke, I am not mad at you either. I believe in clima change as natural occurrence of our earth cycles, but not the crap that Obama and the profiteers wants, they will find anything where they can make a buck, if we leave it to them we will be paying for the air we breath because we already are paying for the water.

neo96
reply to post by nixie_nox

 

Except that it is in the government's own best interest to not have GW.

What a effing joke.

Government only does what they want in their own interest.

That is abundantly clear.

It is every single person's best interest to not have to lay out that kind of candy. Not to mention lives lost and infrastructure interrupted.

The disasters and health issues that are being created and will be created will cost far more than any revenue that can be had from GW. We are looking at costs into the trillions.

Yeah well the way I see it that man caused disaster called the US government does worse that costs more revenue, that is currently costing this nation TRILLIONS.

Go live in N. Korea and tell me how bad the US is. People who have actually lived in dictatorships, would think you a whiney brat. Besides, trying to deflect that you have nothing to support your skeptical case against GW by turning it into a tirade against the US government won't go unnoticed by me.

So any argument about wanting regulation and making money from imaginary taxes and carbon credits will be far offset by the trillions it will cost to clean up after disasters.

Imaginary taxes ?

Looked at the GD price of gas lately, or the cost of heating and cooling homes.

The increase of goods and services across the board from them so called 'imaginary' taxes.

Gas is a state tax. Cost of heating and cooling is by private companies as driven by the cost of oil which is a commodity.

The increase costs of goods and services has nothing to do with GW, and has everything to do with corporations being insanely greedy and squeezing every penny they can from the public.

reply to post by KeliOnyx


I have seen the global picture alright in my 53 years of life, and guess what it have profiteers all over and if you want to pay them do it but I refuse to allow them to make profits on me.

Earth have cycles you know they used to teach that in school but sadly Americans education is becoming a dumbed out agenda to make dumb people.

I am glad that education during my time was one of the best, now is crap.

reply to post by nixie_nox

It is every single person's best interest to not have to lay out that kind of candy. Not to mention lives lost and infrastructure interrupted

Sorry don't get my morality from people online, or the US government.

Go live in N. Korea and tell me how bad the US is. People who have actually lived in dictatorships, would think you a whiney brat. Besides, trying to deflect that you have nothing to support your skeptical case against GW by turning it into a tirade against the US government won't go unnoticed by me.

As opposed to the 'whiny little global warming brats' ?

Gas is a state tax. Cost of heating and cooling is by private companies as driven by the cost of oil which is a commodity.

Actually it is driven by REGULATION.

The increase costs of goods and services has nothing to do with GW, and has everything to do with corporations being insanely greedy and squeezing every penny they can from the public.

'Right' all them evil corporations robbing, and wanting to 'kill' people.

Like I said the only thing Global Warming is a new face on an old argument.

Them GD evil corporations!.

And this is how ridiculous the global warming crowd is.

They push a technology that depends on the CLIMATE to work.

And they shout the CLIMATE is changing!

And Fictious Archie Bunker called this 40 YEARS AGO.




It's all a conspiracy.

Obama and the Democrats are only slightly less dishonest about climate change and all things environment than the GOP and Tea Party by means of omission and not making this a major party platform. They are increasingly as bought off by Big Oil, industry, major polluters. That collective facepalm you heard during sotu was probably less conservative in origin and more people like me who see the actual situation as I do.

Neo is right, government acts in its own best interest. Nixie is right, that it's not in the government's best interest to acknowledge climate change... that's why it does virtually nothing on the issue.

Obama: Climate change is real. *thought bubble* but we're going to push and approve the KXL and the TPP anyway.

thesaneone
reply to post by nixie_nox

 

I reread and it still means nothing.

How do they know what the weather patterns were like before humans? sure they can guess but doesn't make them right, hell they are still learning about the oceans.

Because climate isn't just about observing weather and taking temperatures.

If you want to use the excuse that they don't "know enough" that means you would have to dispute anything that was pre civilization. How do they know how old the pyramids are? How do they know that the continents once formed Pangaea? How do they know what caused the decimation of Pompeii and when?

You don't get to cherry pick and choose which historical data you want to follow, based on personal belief.

Not only can they reverse engineer current data, they get it from borehole data, coral growth, tree ring measurement, ocean sediment, stalagmites, ice core data, and microfossils in sediments. Which is why so many different scientists are involved in climate data.

The Earth doesn't lie.