Climate Crisis Fraud -written by a man who shares the Nobel Prize with Al Gore

[HotNSexyMILF]

I get the point, drive junk and avoid the high cost. I did that for years. Being a mechanic, I repaired them myself and saved even more. In my older reality, I decided to award myself and buy a new truck. Little did I know that within 7 years the price of fuel would triple. I now own a very nice gas hog. It will get 19 MPG on the highway, but around town, it only pulls down 12. Now I drive very little, unless I take it on the road, maybe 100-200 miles a month, so my fuel costs and my carbon footprint are much less than a person that gets 30 MPG and drives say 1,000-2,000 miles a mo. What I'm trying to say is it's all relative. Price to hassle may be a factor. With my almost new truck, I have no fear getting in it and driving to say new york other than fuel costs. 18-25 bucks a hundred miles. A 1,000 mile trip will eat up 180.00-250.00 in gas alone, thats 540.00-750.00 in fuel to go to NYC from vegas. Now flying and taxi fare seems reasonable or a rental car. If I wasn't so imprinted with the automobile, I'd get an electric go cart and do all my local stuff with that.

LOL.. my father is a mechanic, so same situation here... (parents are divorced now) My mom has driven shyt cars her whole life- 3 years ago she treated herself to a new pickup.. lol.. she regrets it now as well..



Also, this topic was kinda continued in another thread- hopefully the name calling will not follow.. lol..
https://www.rollitup.org/politics/56921-global-warming-no-such-thing.html

 

[medicineman]

LOL.. my father is a mechanic, so same situation here... (parents are divorced now) My mom has driven shyt cars her whole life- 3 years ago she treated herself to a new pickup.. lol.. she regrets it now as well..



Also, this topic was kinda continued in another thread- hopefully the name calling will not follow.. lol..
https://www.rollitup.org/politics/56921-global-warming-no-such-thing.html

I'm trying to refrain from name calling, it's kinda like quitting Heroin, although I've never done that drug, I've heard it's a bitch to give up'. It's much easier to say, fuck you you're stupid than try to prove them wrong. I'm not even interested in proving anything. I'll just add a few comments and hope I'm not attacked by some @%&?&^$#, ya feel me.

 

[HotNSexyMILF]

I'm trying to refrain from name calling, it's kinda like quitting Heroin, although I've never done that drug, I've heard it's a bitch to give up'. It's much easier to say, fuck you you're stupid than try to prove them wrong. I'm not even interested in proving anything. I'll just add a few comments and hope I'm not attacked by some @%&?&^$#, ya feel me.

LOL.. l've never done heroin or anything so i couldn't tell you.. maybe a better comparison would be to trying to give up sex.. LOL..

If you're not trying to prove an argument Med, what exactly are you trying to contribute?

 

[email468]

LOL.. l've never done heroin or anything so i couldn't tell you.. maybe a better comparison would be to trying to give up sex.. LOL..

If you're not trying to prove an argument Med, what exactly are you trying to contribute?

no comparison - it is possible to give up heroin

 

[HotNSexyMILF]

no comparison - it is possible to give up heroin

I'm just going to smile and shut up.

 

[medicineman]

I'm just going to smile and shut up.

Me too......

 

[may]

You Too CC. I hope you didn’t take my period of silence as an insult. I’ve been so busy at work and had the day off so I figured I’d try to respond.

I hope too that you don’t think I’m picking on you. When I first stumbled on this thread I noticed someone basically making the argument to another member that “Global Warming is a fraud because you and Al Gore are a couple of faggots.” It’s been my experience that someone whom has nothing insightful to offer instigates such arguments… Which is why I entered the thread stating just that, and then thereafter ignored this person’s moronically imbecilic rejoins.

I firmly believe that we [members of the forum] should at least agree we are all hemp activists… and that any disagreement on topics such as this ultimately doesn’t impair the demographic potential of our common goal. For this reason I have not chosen to debate those who accuse me of “belittling” them for stating the obvious… Or would rather pretend that I was claiming the Romans invented the aqueduct (an immensely broad term) rather than claiming they invented the Roman Aqueduct:

Invented? You could have just said they built the aqueduct, or look at the roman aqueduct a monumental engineering achievement. But like most things you said you just didn't know what you were talking about. Like the dark ages crap you spewed. First the dark ages is a misnomer and I would like you to prove that someone else thanks that it started around 300 bc , or that constantines successor ordered the destruction of the library of Alexandria? Best as I remember the library was decimated 4-6 times and no one knows when it was destroyed and I think it came in to being around 300bce.

A monumental engineering achievement utilized by the arch and methods of slope measurement that would leave today’s plumbers in awe,

Some of the best minds of the time worked on it, do you think that plumbers of today have some of the best brains?
Or do you think its the plumbers of today that are responsble for bringing water 40 miles for its use?

brought potable water from streams as much as 40 miles away, sometimes thru mountains, and allowed a level of cleanliness to facilitate a million-plus city that would not be rivaled for 2,000 years…

The greeks did these things [through less far for fewer] as did others and they also had the arch , before the romans. The greeks tunneled a half mile or so through a moutain around 600BCE, started from both sides and although they needed to zigzag to stay in good rock the tunnels were only 2 feet off side to side but right on level wise.

Rather than just letting me refer to a well known scientific achievement as “invented the aqueduct,” this person chose to debate what clearly I did not mean.

Bullshit! you had no reason to refer to it in the first place, it was just a lame way to brag on what you know and showed me your lack.

With that said, I hope you understand that you should take my continued criticism / critique as a compliment rather than an attack.

Dito, I say the same thing. Now doesn't that make you feel good to get this compliment?

To what isle are you referring? Scientifically peer reviewed data versus partisan hackery? That’s a pretty big isle my friend, and this is why I don’t quote Al Gore (he’s not a scientist with published data.) I don’t know where you get your information, but the paper I read restricts commentary in the ‘News’ to the experts publishing data, and separates opinion to the editorial section. For example the NY-Times publishes the notably brilliant yet notably biased economic commentary of Paul Krugman [Dean of Economics at Princeton] to the editorial section (Let’s not debate if the NY-Times is liberal. It’s not the point.) The information you have presented to date, in my opinion, represents commentary as news. Given your previous admission that historical president is reason enough to demand science be “regulated by or conforming to the principles of exact science” (that’s directly out of my dictionary.) I would hope you will admit that accepting the opinions of commentators, no matter how brilliant they may be, is historically unwise when in disagreement with the CONSENSUS of scientific of scientifically published data. Will you admit that for me? Will you admit if the vast majority of scientist are in agreement they tend to be at least more correct than lay-people or even those who may be brilliant yet have chosen to devote their time & effort to suspiciously funded organizations with political agendas? If not could you please site one historical instance in which such an anomaly has occurred? Of course not because it doesn’t exist.

Is it not true that allmost 2,000 years after erastosthenes came up with how to calculate the circumference of the earth, that scientific CONSENSUS was that the earth was flat?

Now don't you feel a little silly? As well you should.

The examples sited by Michael Crichton are lame at best… The “tectonic plates…” This is just a theory of geology you know? It has now superseded the theory of “continental drift.” With just the slightest bit of critical thinking, the arguments of those you’re quoting break down and actually support the opposite. Mr. Crichton is actually asking us to assume the scientific consensus is correct over the 0.1% of geologists who disagree. Talk about fucking hypocrisy.

You keep saying this as though I haven’t already addressed it. Many brilliant scientist believe the 911 conspiracy theories, believe in UFO abductions, believe the earth is 6,000 years old, believe in some bat-shit-insane, Cool-Aid drinkin’, spoon bending maharishi is the profit of god, etc, etc. Are you actually insinuating that scientific consensus is no more reliable than the clearly delusional yet somehow brilliant minority? (I’m going to respond exactly the same way every time you re-state the above without addressing my rejoin.)

So you would see Erastosthenes also as clearly delusional?

Say’s who? Are you suggesting that ‘Global Climatology’ has no basis as a science, and therefore should not be studied due to the fact that we only have one scale model (the earth) in which to compare our data? Are you forgetting the NASA search returned a No.2 item pertaining to Mars? Are you suggesting that published data by those same climatologists predicting the 900 degF surface temperatures created by Venus’ massive CO2 atmosphere are correct simply by accident? This conspiracy theory has more moving arguments than O.J.

Its not really a conspiracy as much as how things work and how the data has been collected. Take temp. data, it has collected for a long time but almost all of it has been taken from towns and citys as they got larger and the air quality went down the temps went up, while this seems simple, baselines are pulled from these past temps and not adjusted because how would you quantify the adjustment?

You should stay away from using history as you seem not to have the knack or knowage.

Would you please respond to this so I don’t have to keep banging out the same thing over and over again?

Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different result, is a way to define mental illness. You should seek help.

WTF? Give me a break here man… You have offered nothing scientific. The Morano article used a study, which all peers agreed was oversimplified and less accurate than the 2006 NASA study… Morano’s conclusion: “A new “peer-reviewed study overturned “in one fell swoop” the climate fears promoted by the UN and former Vice President Al Gore.” Read the NASA peer review Abstract, Introduction, & Conclusion and tell me with a straight face that Morano's thesis is based on legitimate science:

Use any of the other published reviews if you like. Morano either didn’t read the reviews or he’s being deceitful… Let’s be honest… He’s a god damn fucking liar, and this first and therefore clearly your best reference which quite grossly overstates the implication of it’s thesis reference study is nothing more than a medium of deceit.

I ask you to give me your best study so that I may point out the problems with it and I asure you that I can read and understand it.

Put yourself in my shoes. Until you provide a single study with positive peer reviews, I cannot take your argument seriously. I’ve got kids, so I’m hope your right but Jesus, how hard would it really be to provide this if you were actually correct? It will take you 30 seconds to look up my study and it’s corresponding reviews:

Pubs.GISS: NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies Publications



It has been my experience that people who invent oversimplified ‘Straw-Man’ arguments like that above do not have sufficient facts to debate the subject honestly. I have never posted such an argument, and yet you offer it as a rebuttal.

Please cut&paste the study here for all to see.

Don’t “fucking count” to you, and since when do they not test against historical data points. This is obvously the only way to test on a full model scale. It is quite obvious from the above statement that you have never read any of these studies, but rather accepted propoganda from the likes of Morano and company as fact over the science. How many times do I have to keep requesting a single scientific study before you admit you don't have one. Like all scientific theories, the intellectually honest admit that nothing is fact (just like I admit you might be right, just like the biblical creationists might be right, you just don't have scientific consensus on your side)… You’ll impress me if you post what I’ve requested now at least 5-times per post, because by now it is quite obvious that you won’t because you can’t.

Let’s quit pretending to be qualified of making such grand conclusions… It’s insulting. And let’s quit pretending that there’s anything less than a scientific consensus tantamount to evolution or tectonic plates, etc.

If you would have said tantamount Darwins theories I wouldn't argue even though you would be wrong, but the truth is its tantamount to the proof of life on mars.

If you can't post the science I’ve requested, let’s agree to defer to a scientific journal of your choosing & perform a key word search as a random sampling of scientific consensus. Again, I’m looking for actual science here, not news/commentary from suspiciously funded organizations or NewMax. I’m going to have to start keeping track of how many times I’ve requested some legitimate science here.

I for one haven't seen proof you could read it nor that you would know it if you see it.

 

[medicineman]

lotta hate going on in here.

 

[email468]

lotta hate going on in here.

You and I have had plenty of difference of opinion, occasionally "spirited" , but can find plenty of common ground. I think you have to want to look for it. Not everybody wants to do that i guess.

 

[medicineman]

You and I have had plenty of difference of opinion, occasionally "spirited" , but can find plenty of common ground. I think you have to want to look for it. Not everybody wants to do that i guess.

Really? I thought we had a lot of similar views. Maybe the liberal thingy gets in the way. Let me say this: I believe every person should work for their supper, thing is, there arent enough jobs to go around. What are the jobless to do, sell drugs to the employed, become theives? The society needs to find a way to provide employment for all that want it and to make life difficult for those that don't. That's about as conservative as I can get. Of course it would help if the government would reign in oppulent spending and change the foriegn policy to one of peace, not corporate policing of the world, but that's only my humble opinion.

 

[email468]

Really? I thought we had a lot of similar views. Maybe the liberal thingy gets in the way. Let me say this: I believe every person should work for their supper, thing is, there arent enough jobs to go around. What are the jobless to do, sell drugs to the employed, become theives? The society needs to find a way to provide employment for all that want it and to make life difficult for those that don't. That's about as conservative as I can get. Of course it would help if the government would reign in oppulent spending and change the foriegn policy to one of peace, not corporate policing of the world, but that's only my humble opinion.

we do share a lot of opinions. which one of us is liberal? i'm not really sure - i share many views from both sides of that fake fence.

 

[towlie]

I'm sure I can expect towlie to break down that post sentence by fucking sentence. Resist, dude.

We are just sharing ideas here.

There’s no fucking way I could ignore the shit you say. My now favorite past time is to post my comment, then your delusional response.

Furthermore, I have already explained why I respond directly to each of your comments. Add this to the list of growing comments you have failed to comprehend. As usual (actually always) you have twisted my comments inside your head, and responded to a straw man argument. (As promised, I will demonstrate this below.) Without exception during this thread, I have posted your comment, then my response. This takes, what? 1-second? You have not responded to a single question honestly. I keep saying this, and yet you lack the courage to present your discussion honestly.


I said: “I keep telling you that I don’t think any legitimate science exists, but I’ll admit it if I see it.”

Then you said: “You believe the scientists who proclaim "Crisis! Crisis!".”

Lol. You kill me dude.

I said: “I keep telling you over and over that I could find 100 scientific studies in under 2-minutes, but none of them agree with what you’re saying. You keep saying over and over that there is legitimate science but have yet to back it. The fact that I have to explain this to you on post 372 only proves your absolute delusion.”

Then you said… I shit you not… You really responded with this: “I believe the more moderate scientists who see nearly all data of every 'scientific study' as being within the natural range of climate variability.”


Questions you are refusing to answer:
1) Do you admit that accepting the opinions of commentators, no matter how brilliant they may be, is historically unwise when in disagreement with the CONSENSUS of scientific of scientifically published data? If not can you site a single historical reference to the contrary, will you at least admit this? (And don’t go with tectonic plates. Let’s try something relevant.)

2) If you’re still going to claim that science is not advanced enough to model climates could you please explain why you’re citing references that deceitfully misquote the facts pertaining to them? If you’re going deny this will you please address the example I previously gave?

3) Furthermore if you’re still going to claim that science is not advanced enough to model climates… would you please cite a scientific reference supporting this? (You’re scientifically minded right?)

4) May I see your best scientific study please?

Answer: Do your own goddamn research.

5) You’re argument is reduced to saying that the scientists disagree, but when I point out the similarly weighted consensus on UFO’s, 6,000 y/o earth, 911 conspiracy, etc. You completely ignore it. Could you please respond?

6) I offered you 4 published and renowned climatological research centers. I said pick one, or pick any one you can find… you’re a scientifically minded person right??? And let’s perform a search and choose the first 3, 5, 7, returns and see what they say

 

[towlie]

So, Towlie and others, here's the rundown of a true skeptics thoughts...

The title of this thread is Climate Crisis Fraud. Climate change isn't the fraud. Climate CRISIS is. There is no crisis. We are in no danger.

Holy shit CC. The fact that you continually respond with the same thoughtless mantra without internalizing a single god damn thing I said is starting to freak me out. Are you really that far gone?

I’m going to keep this real simple. Let’s just start with a single question:

WHAT IF YOU’RE WRONG? WHAT IF YOU’RE WRONG? IS THERE ANYBODY IN THERE? WHAT IF YOU’RE WRONG!!!


Med & Knowm. I’ll bet you each $1,000 he can’t answer it. Drum Roll...

 

[HotNSexyMILF]

I posted a taste of this research in the other thread.. the one where we aren't bashing people's heads into the wall...

 

[towlie]

1) Do you admit that accepting the opinions of commentators, no matter how brilliant they may be, is historically unwise when in disagreement with the CONSENSUS of scientific of scientifically published data? If not can you site a single historical reference to the contrary, will you at least admit this? (And don’t go with tectonic plates. Let’s try something relevant.)


Hint: Answers shouldn’t end with a question mark, and should be relevant to the question.

In 1988, the surgeon general, C. Everett Koop, proclaimed ice cream to a be public-health menace right up there with cigarettes.

Oh my fucking god. How could you possibly think you’re answering a Yes-or-No question? Why is it that the people pushing this conspiracy theory can’t even internalize the simplest of things?

P.S. Are you ready to admit you’ve never seen that absolutely doltish equation used by anyone pushing GW? Incidentally, a reference, name, or guess as to where you might have seen it would be included with the answer.

 

[towlie]

May. If you want to banter with me that’s fine. But if you can’t be man enough do it without crying about how condescending I’ve been, then kindly jerk off in the corner until you can find someone to coddle you.

If you really want me to respond to your latest idiocy I will, but be prepared… you’ve backed me into a corner on this one.

 

[closet.cult]

Let’s just start with a single question:

WHAT IF YOU’RE WRONG? WHAT IF YOU’RE WRONG? IS THERE ANYBODY IN THERE? WHAT IF YOU’RE WRONG!!!


Med & Knowm. I’ll bet you each $1,000 he can’t answer it. Drum Roll...

I'll answer one question for now (I thought I already did?)

Once more: I...DESIRE...ALL...THE...CHANGES...YOU...DO. Everyone does. Renewable energy sources, clean up dirty industry, move to clean auto fuels...stop clear cutting and burning the forests. I just don't believe in man-man global warming.

So, if I’m, wrong: NOTHING DIFFERENT HAPPENS THEN IF I'M RIGHT. Open, capitalistic markets WILL bring about these changes in technological advancements even if legislation doesn't force them on us. Just as no one had to force anyone to stop riding horses when cars were invented, if car companies offer cleaner fuel technology with better mileage, people will buy it.

So, do you really understand what you're asking? It is widely understood that the Kyoto agreement will do little to NOTHING to mitigate climate change. Cars are really a very tiny piece of the puzzle. So, industry needs to clean up. But no one is asking industry to clean up. They’re asking them to pay a fucking carbon trading fee. Do you honestly think FAKE carbon trading between companies is going to do a goddamn thing for the environment? You're delusional.

For all your faithful green-head's talk, nothing is going to happen for the planet except to prevent third world nations from enjoying the technology you currently enjoy, you hypocrites.

You want to introduce laws to make our homes more efficient and better insulated. Fine. Build with recycled goods. Fine. Again: these do little to change CO2 prodution.

You're just like the democrats. A lot of talk of change, yet nothing ever gets done. All your legislating still equals no change in actual amount of human CO2 out gassing. Maybe renewable energy sources will help lower carbon emissions’. But I guarantee you those energy sources will be used in the future with or without climate change litigation.

So, if I'm wrong, NOTHING CHANGES. The planet will warm, but a conservative estimate of ONE FULL DEGREE over the next century is STILL NOT A CRISIS. (It raised .6 degrees over last century and we have cleaned up our technologies already and will continue to do so.) If you don’t think we can expect HUGE advancements in science, energy and recycling in the next 100 years (even without a Kyoto treaty) you must really be delusional. Just think about the state of technology 100 years ago.

If I'm right: still Nothing changes BUT the planet's middle and lower class have another tax burden thrown on their shoulders at the hands of unscrupulous politicians and the masses’ inferior I.Q.

Sig-hail environmentallists!

 

[closet.cult]

towlie: the problem you have is that really BELIEVE the rest of us who doubt man-made global warming are less educated than you.

somehow you dont seem to understand the statement: "capable scientists are arguing on boths sides of this issue."

I don't know how else to tell you that I looked at all the links you sent me and none of them prove a goddamn thing. most of them don't even try to. they typically just show pictures of the melting ice caps and restate the mantras.

global warming has circumstantial, at best. the planet warmed a little this century. SO WHAT?! It doesn't matter HOW MUCH melting the earth is experiencing the question is: Is man causing it? The research and EXPERIMENTATION should be centered around CO2 and its effect. To that end, CO2 has been shown to have a limit on its warming effect. I'll try to find the supporting scientific study for this.

 

[HotNSexyMILF]

Hm.. guess I'll repost this here...

Ok.. I was trying to stay off this topic.. but this is just too big of a problem to ignore- I'm fuckin' sick of watching their bullshit propaganda trying to get us to pay a global tax and reduce population..

First off, the sun is the hottest it has been in the past 1000 years. Also, the years with the highest global temperatures- doesn't match the years with the highest concentration of co2. The raise in temperature also came before the raise in co2.. by like a few hundred years. Yeah, make the graph span thousands of years so the sheeple don't notice the gap- it's a small gap if we make the graph this way, they won't notice..

Scientist's Explanation for Global Greenhouse Warming!

Hm.. call my crazy.. but that looks pretty normal in the grand scheme of things to me..
Image:Co2-temperature-plot.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to blame - Telegraph
The heat's in the sun

Funny as well how the scientist in this article is predicting the sun's 'hot phase' will peak and start subsiding in a few decades... funny amount of time to be using.. seeing at the politicians are pushing for a global carbon tax over this (yes, they want to tax the air you breath because 'co2 is ruining our earth') and even more recently they're are calling to COMPLETELY HALT producing greenhouse gases AT ALL in the next few decades.. this will bring us back to primitive living... I wouldn't mind- that's what I want... however.. as far as the masses.. a lot will not survive...
World Must Cut Carbon Emissions to Zero by 2050 or Face Disaster, Studies Find
Zero carbon emissions urged in studies to stop major climate change | TheNewsTribune.com | Tacoma, WA

The Wall Street Journal

Keep your propoganda straight liars!
Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

Plus.. temperatures have risen lately... wtf? Call me crazy, but my working brain tells me if it was the man made 'greenhouse gas' shyt that was actually causing the rise in global temperature, it would keep going up- not fluctuate spiuatically.
Opinion: Borrowing to fight a nonthreat | borrowing, despite, fight - Victorville Daily Press
Global warming sceptics buoyed by record cold - Telegraph
Hawaii Reporter: Hawaii Reporter

EcoWorld - The Global Environmental Community - Nature and Technology in Harmony

Freak rain, not global warming, blamed for last year's devastating £3bn floods | the Daily Mail



If you are still blind after this.. I dunno what to tell you. -_- Apparently none of these propaganda pushers on RIU don't know how to research.. here was a little start for you..

The Wall Street Journal

^ How to make a bundle off the 'global warming crisis'...

 

[closet.cult]

thanks again, sexymilf.

i dont expect the 'believers' will read your 'apostate' literature though.