New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

[deadeye]

Just like any other debate that draws attention away from what is really going on, this is a waste of time. BOTH sides have much to gain or lose as it depends on the outcome as to whether they continue to have a job to go to tomorrow. Both sides will spend significant amounts of time and money maniplulating the information to benifit their agenda. This is all about the almighty dollar pure and simple and nothing else.

When the scientists that have nothing to gain from the findings come forth then I will believe the findings.

 

[scrappydoo]

Hold on a second. We already have a thread on climate change where you guys refuse to believe the scientific community. And in that thread you guys don't have a single credible scientist to support your "junk science" bs. So I'll ask again in this thread like I did in the other thread. When are you guys going to produce a study that supports your side where the study was actually done by the author? All the scientists you come up with have either taken huge amounts of money from the oil industry, have worked for a special interest group to further the agenda they want, or are trying to profit from their opposition to climate change.

Sasquatch, seriously dude. You're going to post your Alex Jones conspiracy crap in this thread too? When the New World Order declares martial law and throws us all in FEMA camps then we'll deffer to your wisdom. Until then, maybe you can post something that doesn't require a tinfoil hat to understand.

One last point, what evil president implemented the first Cap and Trade program in the US?!! Oh wait, it was George H.W. Bush.

 

[Jamie6.5]

Well nice to see that there is still some individuals on this site that listen to reason.

I have a question for the skeptics:

Lets say that climate change/global warming is a hoax/wrong/natural/not man-made, yet we take measures to reduce our output of pollution in order to have a better, cleaner, healthier earth?

How exactly is that terrible? You realize that its going to be your children and grandchildren that will have to live with our choices.

Answering this is like answering the people that want to prevent "Mentally disturbed/insane people" from having guns.
Define insane and/or mentally disturbed.

You don't follow the analogy??

Okay,... Then try this.
When did carbon dioxide become a pollutant? Who defines what a pollutant is?

It never used to be a pollutant. Plants depend on it. Virtually all fauna on the face of the earth exhales it, and all flora use it as part of their life cycle.
Clue #1,... Co2 is NOT a pollutant.
Yet Boxer13 is convinced it is, as are many others here obviously.

Yet now, because pseudo Wall-Street eco-wannabes see a scam they can make money on trading carbon credits it's a pollutant? Now U.N. types and their crooked American politicians with a socialist bent see a way to limit industrial growth, and the prosperity and freedom of Americans, it has become a "pollutant."

And together with the mainstream media they have appealed to your guilt and convinced you that this completely natural compound/gas that is the cornerstone of life on earth, is of all things, a pollutant.

How Orwellian.
LESS IS MORE!!

Sorry you bunch of leftist ID10Ts, but I refuse to feel guilty for my country's record of industrial success and innovation, or the free market that fostered it
You guys sit using a plethora of machines to communicate about this, when they are the epitome of what free market industrialism has done for the people and the world, and decry the system that brought it/them about.

And then snivel about "carbon" to assuage your guilt.
BECAUSE YOU BOUGHT INTO AN IDEOLOGY THAT CAN'T SURVIVE WITHOUT GUILT.

Buy a clue. I hear Borders has them for 40% off during their liquidation sale!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

GREEN is the new RED
And here's another clue,... Cap and trade will see to it that everything costs you more. Aren't you glad?!? Won't that help alleviate your guilt?
But, but,... What about the people that can't afford it,...
Well don't worry, you can always feel guilty about them afterwards.

 

[trainsktg]

Interesting that those promoting global warming are never accused of bias, while those against are automatically accused of corporate bias.

Keith

 

[scrappydoo]

Hey genius, what did CO2 levels do before all five mass extinction events throughout Earth's history? Maybe you should lock yourself in a garage filled with this harmless natural gas that's the cornerstone of life on earth and see what happens.

 

[Jamie6.5]

And when you guilt ridden "geniuses" recognize the planting of a tree/shrub/lawn as a form of carbon sequestration and allow a carbon credit to be issued for it you will be on the path of recognizing how easy it is to overcome the "problem" your guilt is focused on.

Mass extinction "events" have been shown to be just that. Conditions triggered by catastrophic events like meteor impacts and/or extreme volcanic activity.

Those clues are still on sale!

 

[scrappydoo]

Your logic is ridiculous. Either increased levels of CO2 are harmful or they're not. Whether it's from a volcano or emissions, CO2 is CO2. So you can either admit that it has an effect on the climate or deny it. Pick one, but you don't get to dance back and forth.

It's a direct question. Can large amounts of CO2 change the climate?

 

[trainsktg]

It's a direct question. Can large amounts of CO2 change the climate?

That's a very good question.

C02 as a percentage of atmosphere...

...in 1850 (pre-indstrial revolution) = .0.028 of 1% (280 parts per million)

...in 2010 = 0.039 of 1% (390 parts per million)

Is an increase of 0.011 of 1% over 160 years a large increase? This is equivalent to an $11 dollar raise if you make $100,000 a year.

Keith (By contrast, the largest greenhouse gas, water vapor = up to 4% (40,000 parts per million), yet water vapor in never included in the climate modelling.)

 

[jib]

"Evolution's a theory, continental drift's a theory, Einstein's theory of relativity is a theory, gravity is a theory."

Theories are like *** holes, we all have them. Now we are seeing government controlled science, Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist ***. regarding separation of Church and State in 1802. This was his concern; a state controlled religion, not religion in the state.
The Left will twist the facts to satisfy their goal, which is what they believe is for the greater good.

 

[trainsktg]

Gravity isn't a theory, it is a natural law. You may not believe in it, but you'll fall down regardless .

Keith

 

[jib]

trainsktg

" Gravity isn't a theory, it is a natural law. You may not believe in it, but you'll fall down regardless . "

It's funny how physical laws are ignored, take the 2nd law of thermodynamics, evolution flies in the face of it. But we all believe order came from disorder.

 

[MikeE]

And when Global Warming legislation is passed who do you think will pay?

People are already paying right now, from Texas to Somalia.
The Pentagon has been reviewing the link between climate change and conflict since at least 2004, during the Bush administration:
Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us | Environment | The Observer
Reporter Christian Parenti has written a great new book called Tropic of Chaos, about climate change as the cause and accelerant of conflict:
Democracy Now! | Shows featuring Christian Parenti
Some people will continue to deny and ignore this, until they personally are nailed by an effect of climate chaos. Then they'll expect to be helped and cared for, if possible. Interesting that climate denial is so entrenched amongst people who are 'preppers' in other ways. As Trismn has said, it really is all about 'politics'.

 

[jib]

Does anyone disagree that George Bush Jr. is a Globalist ?

 

[MikeE]

Does anyone disagree that George Bush Jr. is a Globalist ?

Seven years ago we were told that GWB was in direct communication with the Almighty? What happened?

 

[jib]

"Seven years ago we were told that GWB was in direct communication with the Almighty? "

So Mike,

Who told you this ?

 

[MikeE]

GWB, relating his WH conversation with the President of the Palestinian Authority. Please don't make me look it up, it's been a long day.

 

[jib]

"Seven years ago we were told that GWB was in direct communication with the Almighty?"

So before I go to sleep at night and give thanks and praise to the almighty I would hope I am in direct contact, wouldn't you ?

 

[Trlsmn]

Seven years ago we were told that GWB was in direct communication with the Almighty? What happened?

Not sure how that would effect Global Warming?

 

[Trlsmn]

People are already paying right now, from Texas to Somalia.

I guess you didn't understand the question, my fault. Let me be clearer, when CO2 is taxed and regulated who do you think will pay? Will the rich polluters just absorb the hit or will they pass it on to the poor and dying middle class?

The Pentagon has been reviewing the link between climate change and conflict since at least 2004, during the Bush administration:
Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us | Environment | The Observer
Reporter Christian Parenti has written a great new book called Tropic of Chaos, about climate change as the cause and accelerant of conflict:
Democracy Now! | Shows featuring Christian Parenti
Some people will continue to deny and ignore this, until they personally are nailed by an effect of climate chaos. Then they'll expect to be helped and cared for, if possible. Interesting that climate denial is so entrenched amongst people who are 'preppers' in other ways. As Trismn has said, it really is all about 'politics'.

So let me get this straight, you're telling me Global Warming now causes war? LOL! People haven't needed a reason to kill each other throughout the history of mankind. The causes of war are about money and power period, always has been, always will be.

 

[scrappydoo]

That's a very good question.

C02 as a percentage of atmosphere...

...in 1850 (pre-indstrial revolution) = .0.028 of 1% (280 parts per million)

...in 2010 = 0.039 of 1% (390 parts per million)

Is an increase of 0.011 of 1% over 160 years a large increase? This is equivalent to an $11 dollar raise if you make $100,000 a year.

Keith (By contrast, the largest greenhouse gas, water vapor = up to 4% (40,000 parts per million), yet water vapor in never included in the climate modelling.)

Your numbers are incorrect and have already been discussed in the original thread. It also highlights the stupidity of starting another thread when there's already one that has hashed out most of these arguments already.