Global Warming?

Status
Not open for further replies.
   / Global Warming? #3,061  
The amazing thing is that 12 years ago the republicans were all for climate change and their idea of carbon credits then the Koch brothers gave them a bunch of money, their opinion changed.
The same ad agency that was pedaling the tobaco industries BS is now in the climate change deniers business.

That's odd. Democrats have and are continually saying it is Republicans that have been blocking climate change legislation. Name the long list of Republicans the Koch brothers bought off; that should be interesting.
What is the "same ad agency"?

Barack Obama recently stated the earth has warmed the past 10 years even more than was predicted. Was he lying or just didn't know the facts?
 
   / Global Warming? #3,062  
The amazing thing is that 12 years ago the republicans were all for climate change and their idea of carbon credits then the Koch brothers gave them a bunch of money, their opinion changed.

Johnp33: If your point is that some Republicans, left-leaning, big government, progressives are just as wrong as left-leaning, big government, progressive Democrats, then I agree!! Right on, Brother!!

I was in my dentist's office a while back and picked up a National Geographic Magazine. It contained an article about rainfall changes that caught my eye. (Article)It started out giving multiple examples of ancient civilizations across the world and across many millennia that were completely wiped out by drought. Then came this paragraph,

"The rainfall changes that devastated these early civilizations long predate industrialization; they were triggered by naturally occurring climate shifts whose causes remain uncertain. By contrast, climate change brought about by increasing greenhouse gas concentrations is our own doing. It, too, will influence precipitation patterns, in ways that, though not always easy to predict, could prove equally damaging."

Huh? You just gave me examples showing that natural climate shifts have caused extreme weather over long periods in Earth's past. Why, all of a sudden, must the latest changes be man-caused?

It also troubles me that AGW solutions so neatly fit the left's wealth redistribution agenda. Why is it that fixing too much CO2 in the air means taxing hard-working Americans and giving billions to (mostly) leftist third world countries?

Finally, I think it is interesting that although fully half of the people in the country apparently support Obama's leftist agenda, none of them are selling off their cars or TRACTORS or turning off their heat or voluntarily paying higher taxes. Thomas Jefferson said, "half a loaf is better than no bread". Heck, if the lefties started to walk the talk and things started to improve they might win some converts.

Of course, we'll never see that because AGW isn't about healing the planet, it is about the left gaining more power/control and ultimately destroying the American economy and global political stability along with it. They create or invent a crisis, and then trick the gullible into believing that they are the only solution. They start programs that never succeed yet never go away.

Read some of their books! Their agenda is laid out in black and white for all to see and has been around for decades yet there are so many, otherwise intelligent, people that go along with it. If big government is so good at saving us from ourselves then where are the results? Why is it that after decades of the so called "war on poverty" and other such programs, poverty and other afflictions are still as bad as ever?

Regardless if one believes that GW is man-caused or not, I don't see how any reasonable person can deny that it is being used by the left to further reduce the current fragile stability in the world and that is a bad thing.
 
   / Global Warming? #3,063  
Oil is priced in dollars. As the dollar declines, so goes oil in the opposite direction. Once the world gets sick of financing our printing presses while watching their own currencies implode because of it, the dollar will cease to be the world's reserve currency and it is game over. Think oil/gasoline is expensive now?
 
   / Global Warming? #3,064  
mistermcgoo said:
Oil is priced in dollars. As the dollar declines, so goes oil in the opposite direction. Once the world gets sick of financing our printing presses while watching their own currencies implode because of it, the dollar will cease to be the world's reserve currency and it is game over. Think oil/gasoline is expensive now?

Exactly! It's your dollar changing value not the oil. Lets not forget the 2 Bil people entering the industrial area across Asia. They want cars, modern homes, tractors, electricity, ect. And they are willing to out bid Americans on each tanker leaving the Gulf.
It's a projection of demand, illusion of supply, cost of business(regulation included) and value of your currency that gets you a buy the barrel price. Of course those are not in equal parts.
 
   / Global Warming? #3,065  
I think the oil market is manipulated to keep the prices up. Does not matter how much oil hits the market- someone will find a way to run the price up- close a refinery for cleaning, buy a supertanker of oil and let iy sit until the price is up, etc. . Oil people are addicted to our dollars- they just can't get enough!

When the right questions anything, the right are called conspiracy theory chasers, or some facsimile.

When the left questions something... are they under the same label?

Because the above thought, sounds a lot like a conspiracy... theory.
 
Last edited:
   / Global Warming? #3,066  
The amazing thing is that 12 years ago the republicans were all for climate change and their idea of carbon credits then the Koch brothers gave them a bunch of money, their opinion changed.
The same ad agency that was pedaling the tobaco industries BS is now in the climate change deniers business.

OH I GET IT...no w because both the Republinuts and Demonuts agree on Global weather changing ( from rain to snow, snow to wind, hot to cool ) THEN it must ABSOLUTELY be correct.

3000 post later no one can "splain" how scientists can take the exact same DATA and come up with two polar opposite conclusions. 1970's we were going to FREEZE to death 1990's We're going to burst into flames.

BUT HOLS THE PRESSES PEOPLE the Koch brothers and Al Gore have spoken so it must be true - OPEN UP YOUR WALLETS and give to the Church of Moronic Koolaide Drinkers.
 
   / Global Warming? #3,067  
Exactly! It's your dollar changing value not the oil. Lets not forget the 2 Bil people entering the industrial area across Asia. They want cars, modern homes, tractors, electricity, ect. And they are willing to out bid Americans on each tanker leaving the Gulf.
It's a projection of demand, illusion of supply, cost of business(regulation included) and value of your currency that gets you a buy the barrel price. Of course those are not in equal parts.

It won't matter what the world price of oil is. Develop our own oil. And keep it here. Take us out of the world market of oil and the price will crash.
 
   / Global Warming? #3,069  
Actually Bastardi is pointing out how politicized meteorology has become.

What makes you think Met O is to be trusted? Is it ok that data is manipulated for political purposes?

What relevance does the link to Met O have with respect to Bastardi's articles?
What makes you think Met O is to be trusted? Is it ok that data is manipulated for political purposes?
Did I say they could be trusted? It is what it is..... Bastardi used their graphs, look closely...
Who's data can you trust? I have none of my own except of course what is on my thermometer at the moment. I love that thing, one those purchases that keeps giving back. It has the transmitter outside and the atomic clock receiver inside, giving you the inside and out side temps to one tenth of a degree F or C. Just great!
Is it ok that data is manipulated for political purposes?
Not in my opinion......
 
   / Global Warming? #3,070  
Cat_Driver said:
OH I GET IT...no w because both the Republinuts and Demonuts agree on Global weather changing ( from rain to snow, snow to wind, hot to cool ) THEN it must ABSOLUTELY be correct.

3000 post later no one can "splain" how scientists can take the exact same DATA and come up with two polar opposite conclusions. 1970's we were going to FREEZE to death 1990's We're going to burst into flames.

BUT HOLS THE PRESSES PEOPLE the Koch brothers and Al Gore have spoken so it must be true - OPEN UP YOUR WALLETS and give to the Church of Moronic Koolaide Drinkers.

Cat, you really need to share what it is you drink or smoke before posting. Must be good stuff.
 
   / Global Warming? #3,071  
I didn't notice his teeth. Looks are a high priority to you in meteorologists?

He's in the climate science field. He has a different view than the politically correct one. The going argument in this thread is that all science thinks one way. This gentleman is an example of that assertion being false.

I suppose he has a political opinion on it, due to the fact that climate science is presently tossed around in everyday politics, as a pending crisis necessitating new political and economic policy...resulting in new laws.

Climate change progressives are determined to make this a political issue. Hurricane/Tropical Storm Sandy is a recent example. The links I posted dealt with that most recent event. First post was before, second was after. Third was his overall perspective.

I believe it was perfectly relevant.

]I didn't notice his teeth. Looks are a high priority to you in meteorologists?
How many times have you heard the words "toothless one" used here? I've heard it several, many...:laughing::laughing::p.
Honestly I did not know he was held in such high regard by those apposing or feeling threatened by the theory of AGW.... perhaps I should have more respect, typically I don't care about such things but..there they were.....

He has a different view than the politically correct one.
Uhhhh Now.... which one is the politically correct one...today? You see I'm the one trying to keep the politics out of this discussion so I'm not keeping track, you might want to PM that answer :rolleyes:

Climate change progressives are determined to make this a political issue.
Really? see I was thinking it was those drinking the "other koolaid"...but then again...I'm not keeping track or score or....by the way, who's winning and what's the prize?

Hurricane/Tropical Storm Sandy is a recent example.
An example of what?
 
   / Global Warming? #3,072  
...what it is you drink or smoke before posting...

:laughing: As opposed to the al gore kool-aid you're mainlining?

You should consider changing your moniker to 'Jumping Jack Flash'...
 
   / Global Warming? #3,073  
Arguments I would like to see disappear as they have all been overused and way over distorted:

1. In the 70s scientists were predicting coolling - no they weren't a few popular press mags did but there were no climatologists doing anything like that. The argument has been debunked repeatedly even in this thread.

2. Al Gore...Al Gore...Al Gore!!! For Christ's good sake drop it. He hasn't been relevant for years. I don't even recall seeing anything about him discussing GW for a couple years

3. The skulduggery about the e-mails - there were several investigations over that 'tempest in a teapot' and each and every one showed there was nothing nefarious about htem and the corrections that were made were valid. That was also debunked several times in this forum.

Not that I expect anyone to drop their favorite denialist claims but they are getting old and stale just like I am in my old age.

Harry K
 
   / Global Warming? #3,074  
turnkey4099 said:
Arguments I would like to see disappear as they have all been overused and way over distorted:

1. In the 70s scientists were predicting coolling - no they weren't a few popular press mags did but there were no climatologists doing anything like that. The argument has been debunked repeatedly even in this thread.

2. Al Gore...Al Gore...Al Gore!!! For Christ's good sake drop it. He hasn't been relevant for years. I don't even recall seeing anything about him discussing GW for a couple years

3. The skulduggery about the e-mails - there were several investigations over that 'tempest in a teapot' and each and every one showed there was nothing nefarious about htem and the corrections that were made were valid. That was also debunked several times in this forum.

Not that I expect anyone to drop their favorite denialist claims but they are getting old and stale just like I am in my old age.

Harry K

Hey, you cannot take away their favorite bogus dittohead arguments as they would have to actually read something other than denier blogs to do some research (or in Cat's case have an extra snort or three). Besides, you left out misquoting Feynman, the fact that the climate change has occurred before, the "fact" that there has been no warming in the past decade, that volcanos put out more CO2 than man, or my personal favorite that dinosaur farts changed the climate. Oh yeah, you also forgot all the pinko conspiracy stuff.
 
   / Global Warming? #3,075  
:D
Arguments I would like to see disappear as they have all been overused and way over distorted:

1. In the 70s scientists were predicting coolling - no they weren't a few popular press mags did but there were no climatologists doing anything like that. The argument has been debunked repeatedly even in this thread.

2. Al Gore...Al Gore...Al Gore!!! For Christ's good sake drop it. He hasn't been relevant for years. I don't even recall seeing anything about him discussing GW for a couple years

3. The skulduggery about the e-mails - there were several investigations over that 'tempest in a teapot' and each and every one showed there was nothing nefarious about htem and the corrections that were made were valid. That was also debunked several times in this forum.

Not that I expect anyone to drop their favorite denialist claims but they are getting old and stale just like I am in my old age.

Harry K

Hmm. Maybe Al Gore smarten up, and realize it's all made-up, and It won't stick. Ok Dropped. He's not relevant , ...........1 down :thumbsup:
You guys all followed his lead when he was relevant, why stop now?:confused:
 
   / Global Warming? #3,076  
Hey, you cannot take away their favorite bogus dittohead arguments as they would have to actually read something other than denier blogs to do some research (or in Cat's case have an extra snort or three). Besides, you left out misquoting Feynman, the fact that the climate change has occurred before, the "fact" that there has been no warming in the past decade, that volcanos put out more CO2 than man, or my personal favorite that dinosaur farts changed the climate. Oh yeah, you also forgot all the pinko conspiracy stuff.

LMAO...This is the epitome of hypocrisy...And if you knew more than the modicum of knowledge about Feynman that you Googled up you would realize there is no misquoting him or using his quote out of context....get a clue geeze...!

You and a couple of others are quintessential hypocrites...and are nothing but al gore kool-aid junkies...your ilk don't have monkeys on your backs...you've got 800 pound gorillas....:laughing:
 
   / Global Warming? #3,077  
/pine said:
LMAO...This is the epitome of hypocrisy...And if you knew more than the modicum of knowledge about Feynman that you Googled up you would realize there is no misquoting him or using his quote out of context....get a clue geeze...!

You and a couple of others are quintessential hypocrites...and are nothing but al gore kool-aid junkies...your ilk don't have monkeys on your backs...you've got 800 pound gorillas....:laughing:

Never seen the Gore movie but read enough Feynman including the original you never read to know you misquoted him badly. I notice you've stopped using the expert quote since having that pointed out. BWAAHAAHAA. (Cat sent me his joy juice recipe).
 
   / Global Warming? #3,078  
Never seen the Gore movie but read enough Feynman including the original you never read to know you misquoted him badly. I notice you've stopped using the expert quote since having that pointed out. BWAAHAAHAA. (Cat sent me his joy juice recipe).

Here's one you might enjoy, the cherries got ripe a little early this year, no doubt due to the unseasonably warm weather!

HOOCH

Using a one gallon glass jug, fill it about 3/4 gallon of cherries or grapes, four cups sugar (I only use two) and one liter of Vodka. If there is any space left top off the jug with water.

Stir daily until all the sugar is dissolved. Put wax paper over the jar opening, and loosely tighten the lid.

After all the sugar is dissolved, place the jar in a cool dark place until Thankgiving.

Strain the jar contents through cheesecloth, bottle and imbibe.

For less sweetness, cut the sugar in half.
 
   / Global Warming? #3,079  
This thread proves that the "bitter clingers" to the AGW religion are not swayed by facts. Environmentalism; the new home of the communist party. What they could not destroy from outside, they will destroy from within.
 
   / Global Warming? #3,080  
Arguments I would like to see disappear as they have all been overused and way over distorted:

1. In the 70s scientists were predicting coolling - no they weren't a few popular press mags did but there were no climatologists doing anything like that. The argument has been debunked repeatedly even in this thread.

2. Al Gore...Al Gore...Al Gore!!! For Christ's good sake drop it. He hasn't been relevant for years. I don't even recall seeing anything about him discussing GW for a couple years

3. The skulduggery about the e-mails - there were several investigations over that 'tempest in a teapot' and each and every one showed there was nothing nefarious about htem and the corrections that were made were valid. That was also debunked several times in this forum.

Not that I expect anyone to drop their favorite denialist claims but they are getting old and stale just like I am in my old age.

Harry K

1. In the 70s scientists were predicting coolling - no they weren't a few popular press mags did but there were no climatologists doing anything like that. The argument has been debunked repeatedly even in this thread.
I recall quite well in school in the early and mid 70's the next ice age scare was very prominent. To say "no climatologists" is a bit disingenuous, to be kind. Perhaps in your "old age" the memory isn't working so well. No climatologists? Really? How many "climatologists" were there in 1975? Time Mag Announces Approaching Ice Age « Another View on Climate

2. Al Gore...Al Gore...Al Gore!!! For Christ's good sake drop it. He hasn't been relevant for years. I don't even recall seeing anything about him discussing GW for a couple years
Apparently you don't keep up on current events. Ever hear of Gore's 'Climate Reality Project'? It is understandable that you'd wish he'd just fade away though.


3. The skulduggery about the e-mails - there were several investigations over that 'tempest in a teapot' and each and every one showed there was nothing nefarious about htem and the corrections that were made were valid. That was also debunked several times in this forum.
Debunked? Investigations were nothing but white washes not unlike what Penn State has done. Obfuscation is not investigation. We can discuss this in detail if you have the time. Based on your posts however, truth doesn't seem to be at the top of your list.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Tractor & Equipment Auctions

2016 INTERNATIONAL PROSTAR TANDEM AXLE DAY CAB (A59904)
2016 INTERNATIONAL...
10 Lug Wheels Full Set (A57453)
10 Lug Wheels Full...
Trailmobile Van Trailer (A56438)
Trailmobile Van...
DEUTZ MARATHON 60KW GENERATOR (A58214)
DEUTZ MARATHON...
2009 CHEVROLET C8500 DUMP TRUCK (A59823)
2009 CHEVROLET...
2012 MACK GU (GRANITE) CAB & CHASSIS (A56129)
2012 MACK GU...
 
Top