Is that the ISIS terrorist sky? Originally Posted by WTF
No not that one silly.......
That J.V. ISIS bunch should not be taken so seriously.
That is not unless it is your own head under the knife !
- rioseco
- 01-23-2015, 01:11 PM
No not that one silly.......
That J.V. ISIS bunch should not be taken so seriously.
That is not unless it is your own head under the knife !
- WTF
- 01-23-2015, 01:29 PM
No not that one silly.......My own head has nothing to do with Climate change. Nor does any other head ISIS has lopped off.
That J.V. ISIS bunch should not be taken so seriously.
That is not unless it is your own head under the knife !
ISIS is a Gnat on an Elephants ass compared to long term climate destruction in relation to Human demise.
The reason why most on the right do not give a flying fuck is because they will be long gone by the time it is a serious problem.
You guys are not long term thinkers. You want to fight terrorist but you do not want to fund that fight. I could go on and on....
- rioseco
- 01-23-2015, 02:02 PM
My own head has nothing to do with Climate change. Nor does any other head ISIS has lopped off.I am sure you could go on........but please let me stop you.
ISIS is a Gnat on an Elephants ass compared to long term climate destruction in relation to Human demise.
The reason why most on the right do not give a flying fuck is because they will be long gone by the time it is a serious problem.
You guys are not long term thinkers. You want to fight terrorist but you do not want to fund that fight. I could go on and on.... Originally Posted by WTF
You are the one responsible for the injection of ISIS into the thread, not me.
I am in favor of funding the fight against terrorism. What makes you think that I am not ?
I do care about the enviroment, I simply do not think that it is a relevant concern. I think "climate change" as professed by the left is an over hyped fable. Just my belief. It is no more science than the beliefs of those on the other side of the table on the issue.
- WTF
- 01-23-2015, 02:08 PM
I am sure you could go on........but please let me stop you.You want to spend Trillions fighting terrorist that have about as much chance to doing harm to me as the Tooth Fairy yet you do not want to listen to the overwhelming majority of top scientists in their field?
You are the one responsible for the injection of ISIS into the thread, not me.
I am in favor of funding the fight against terrorism. What makes you think that I am not ?
I do care about the enviroment, I simply do not think that it is a relevant concern. I think "climate change" as professed by the left is an over hyped fable. Just my belief. It is no more science than the beliefs of those on the other side of the table on the issue. Originally Posted by rioseco
Why should I want my tax money wasted on your fears any more than you want your money wasted on mine?
- LexusLover
- 01-23-2015, 03:20 PM
- rioseco
- 01-23-2015, 05:26 PM
You want to spend Trillions fighting terrorist that have about as much chance to doing harm to me as the Tooth Fairy yet you do not want to listen to the overwhelming majority of top scientists in their field?Yeah, your right.
Why should I want my tax money wasted on your fears any more than you want your money wasted on mine? Originally Posted by WTF
Let us not waste money on either. Just let the chips fall and see which kills the most people world wide. You can combat the sun and rising tide with sunscreen and a boat. I will shoot any terrorist that crosses my path.
With both of these threats left unchecked, I bet I run out of ammunition before you run out of sunscreen and oars.
- WTF
- 01-23-2015, 05:42 PM
- WTF
- 01-23-2015, 05:47 PM
[ aQUOTE=rioseco;1056296768]Yeah, your right.
Let us not waste money on either. Just let the chips fall and see which kills the most people world wide. You can combat the sun and rising tide with sunscreen and a boat. I will shoot any terrorist that crosses my path.
With both of these threats left unchecked, I bet I run out of ammunition before you run out of sunscreen and oars.[/QUOTE]One is a long term threat as related to our lifetime. The other is hardly a threat at all unless you are a fucking journalist in the Middle East.You have a much bigger chance of getting killed driving to work....do you want to spend 4 trillion dollars fight that threat?
Let us not waste money on either. Just let the chips fall and see which kills the most people world wide. You can combat the sun and rising tide with sunscreen and a boat. I will shoot any terrorist that crosses my path.
With both of these threats left unchecked, I bet I run out of ammunition before you run out of sunscreen and oars.[/QUOTE]One is a long term threat as related to our lifetime. The other is hardly a threat at all unless you are a fucking journalist in the Middle East.You have a much bigger chance of getting killed driving to work....do you want to spend 4 trillion dollars fight that threat?
- LexusLover
- 01-24-2015, 02:59 AM
- LexusLover
- 01-24-2015, 03:02 AM
One is a long term threat as related to our lifetime. The other is hardly a threat at all unless you are a fucking journalist in the Middle East.You have a much bigger chance of getting killed driving to work....do you want to spend 4 trillion dollars fight that threat? Originally Posted by WTFThat's probably about what FDR said when someone first mentioned the "FINAL SOLUTION" by the Germans...... like "don't worry unless you're a Jew in Europe!"
Here's you and YOUR BOSS:
- WTF
- 01-24-2015, 08:58 AM
That's probably about what FDR said when someone first mentioned the "FINAL SOLUTION" by the Germans...... like "don't worry unless you're a Jew in Europe!"You are comparing some bone headed terrorist to Nazi Germany!
Here's you and YOUR BOSS: Originally Posted by LexusLover
The biggest threat to this country is debt...mostly because people like you advocate war , yet do not seem to want to pay for it out of your SS retirement. Eventually that is how that debt will be paid off....by cutting your retirement benefits.
Won't be pretty when you chickenhawks finally get the bill!
- rioseco
- 01-24-2015, 11:07 AM
[ aQUOTE=rioseco;1056296768]Yeah, your right.One is a long term threat as related to our lifetime. The other is hardly a threat at all unless you are a fucking journalist in the Middle East.You have a much bigger chance of getting killed driving to work....do you want to spend 4 trillion dollars fight that threat?[/QUOTE]
Let us not waste money on either. Just let the chips fall and see which kills the most people world wide. You can combat the sun and rising tide with sunscreen and a boat. I will shoot any terrorist that crosses my path.
With both of these threats left unchecked, I bet I run out of ammunition before you run out of sunscreen and oars. Originally Posted by WTF
For the record, I am in favor of spending whatever is required to KILL ALL RADICAL ISLAMIST TERROIST worldwide in the defense of this nation and liberty.
Furthermore, I favor Colonel Ralph Peterson's method of campaign. Fuck all this politically correct bullshit tactic.
[ Leave nothing behind but smoldering ruins and crying widows.]
Enuff is enuff already, let's get over with it !
(yes Yssup I can spell enough)
- IIFFOFRDB
- 01-24-2015, 11:32 AM
Ozombies think "Global Greening" is a real problem... LMAO!
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/01/...-temperatures/
2014 as the Mildest Year: Why You are Being Misled on Global Temperatures
January 18th, 2015 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
OR: Why I Should Have Been an Engineer Rather than a Climate Scientist
I’ve been inundated with requests this past week to comment on the NOAA and NASA reports that 2014 was the “hottest” year on record. Since I was busy with a Japan space agency meeting in Tokyo, it has been difficult for me to formulate a quick response.
Of course, I’ve addressed the “hottest year” claim before it ever came out, both here on October 21, and here on Dec. 4.
In the three decades I’ve been in the climate research business, it’s been clear that politics have been driving the global warming movement. I knew this from the politically-savvy scientists who helped organize the U.N.’s process for determining what to do about human-caused climate change. (The IPCC wasn’t formed to determine whether it exists or whether is was even a threat, that was a given.)
I will admit the science has always supported the view that slowly increasing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere from burning of fossil fuels should cause some warming, but the view that this would is any way be a bad thing for humans or for Nature has been a politically (and even religiously) driven urban legend.
I am embarrassed by the scientific community’s behavior on the subject. I went into science with the misguided belief that science provides answers. Too often, it doesn’t. Some physical problems are simply too difficult. Two scientists can examine the same data and come to exactly opposite conclusions about causation.
We still don’t understand what causes natural climate change to occur, so we simply assume it doesn’t exist. This despite abundant evidence that it was just as warm 1,000 and 2,000 years ago as it is today. Forty years ago, “climate change” necessarily implied natural causation; now it only implies human causation.
What changed? Not the science…our estimates of climate sensitivity are about the same as they were 40 years ago.
What changed is the politics. And not just among the politicians. At AMS or AGU scientific conferences, political correctness and advocacy are now just as pervasive as as they have become in journalism school. Many (mostly older) scientists no longer participate and many have even resigned in protest.
Science as a methodology for getting closer to the truth has been all but abandoned. It is now just one more tool to achieve political ends.
Reports that 2014 was the “hottest” year on record feed the insatiable appetite the public has for definitive, alarming headlines. It doesn’t matter that even in the thermometer record, 2014 wasn’t the warmest within the margin of error. Who wants to bother with “margin of error”? Journalists went into journalism so they wouldn’t have to deal with such technical mumbo-jumbo. I said this six weeks ago, as did others, but no one cares unless a mainstream news source stumbles upon it and is objective enough to report it.
In what universe does a temperature change that is too small for anyone to feel over a 50 year period become globally significant? Where we don’t know if the global average temperature is 58 or 59 or 60 deg. F, but we are sure that if it increases by 1 or 2 deg. F, that would be a catastrophe?
Where our only truly global temperature measurements, the satellites, are ignored because they don’t show a record warm year in 2014?
In what universe do the climate models built to guide energy policy are not even adjusted to reflect reality, when they over-forecast past warming by a factor of 2 or 3?
And where people have to lie about severe weather getting worse (it hasn’t)? Or where we have totally forgotten that more CO2 is actually good for life on Earth, leading to increased agricultural productivity, and global greening?:
Estimated changes in vegetative cover due to CO2 fertilization between 1982 and 2010 (Donohue et al., 2013 GRL).
Estimated changes in vegetative cover due to CO2 fertilization between 1982 and 2010 (Donohue et al., 2013 GRL).
It’s the universe where political power and the desire to redistribute wealth have taken control of the public discourse. It’s a global society where people believe we can replace fossil fuels with unicorn farts and antigravity-based energy.
Feelings now trump facts.
At least engineers have to prove their ideas work. The widgets and cell phones and cars and jets and bridges they build either work or they don’t.
In climate science, whichever side is favored by politicians and journalism graduates is the side that wins.
And what about those 97% of scientists who agree? Well, what they all agree on is that if their government climate funding goes away, their careers will end.
.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/01/...-temperatures/
2014 as the Mildest Year: Why You are Being Misled on Global Temperatures
January 18th, 2015 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
OR: Why I Should Have Been an Engineer Rather than a Climate Scientist
I’ve been inundated with requests this past week to comment on the NOAA and NASA reports that 2014 was the “hottest” year on record. Since I was busy with a Japan space agency meeting in Tokyo, it has been difficult for me to formulate a quick response.
Of course, I’ve addressed the “hottest year” claim before it ever came out, both here on October 21, and here on Dec. 4.
In the three decades I’ve been in the climate research business, it’s been clear that politics have been driving the global warming movement. I knew this from the politically-savvy scientists who helped organize the U.N.’s process for determining what to do about human-caused climate change. (The IPCC wasn’t formed to determine whether it exists or whether is was even a threat, that was a given.)
I will admit the science has always supported the view that slowly increasing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere from burning of fossil fuels should cause some warming, but the view that this would is any way be a bad thing for humans or for Nature has been a politically (and even religiously) driven urban legend.
I am embarrassed by the scientific community’s behavior on the subject. I went into science with the misguided belief that science provides answers. Too often, it doesn’t. Some physical problems are simply too difficult. Two scientists can examine the same data and come to exactly opposite conclusions about causation.
We still don’t understand what causes natural climate change to occur, so we simply assume it doesn’t exist. This despite abundant evidence that it was just as warm 1,000 and 2,000 years ago as it is today. Forty years ago, “climate change” necessarily implied natural causation; now it only implies human causation.
What changed? Not the science…our estimates of climate sensitivity are about the same as they were 40 years ago.
What changed is the politics. And not just among the politicians. At AMS or AGU scientific conferences, political correctness and advocacy are now just as pervasive as as they have become in journalism school. Many (mostly older) scientists no longer participate and many have even resigned in protest.
Science as a methodology for getting closer to the truth has been all but abandoned. It is now just one more tool to achieve political ends.
Reports that 2014 was the “hottest” year on record feed the insatiable appetite the public has for definitive, alarming headlines. It doesn’t matter that even in the thermometer record, 2014 wasn’t the warmest within the margin of error. Who wants to bother with “margin of error”? Journalists went into journalism so they wouldn’t have to deal with such technical mumbo-jumbo. I said this six weeks ago, as did others, but no one cares unless a mainstream news source stumbles upon it and is objective enough to report it.
In what universe does a temperature change that is too small for anyone to feel over a 50 year period become globally significant? Where we don’t know if the global average temperature is 58 or 59 or 60 deg. F, but we are sure that if it increases by 1 or 2 deg. F, that would be a catastrophe?
Where our only truly global temperature measurements, the satellites, are ignored because they don’t show a record warm year in 2014?
In what universe do the climate models built to guide energy policy are not even adjusted to reflect reality, when they over-forecast past warming by a factor of 2 or 3?
And where people have to lie about severe weather getting worse (it hasn’t)? Or where we have totally forgotten that more CO2 is actually good for life on Earth, leading to increased agricultural productivity, and global greening?:
Estimated changes in vegetative cover due to CO2 fertilization between 1982 and 2010 (Donohue et al., 2013 GRL).
Estimated changes in vegetative cover due to CO2 fertilization between 1982 and 2010 (Donohue et al., 2013 GRL).
It’s the universe where political power and the desire to redistribute wealth have taken control of the public discourse. It’s a global society where people believe we can replace fossil fuels with unicorn farts and antigravity-based energy.
Feelings now trump facts.
At least engineers have to prove their ideas work. The widgets and cell phones and cars and jets and bridges they build either work or they don’t.
In climate science, whichever side is favored by politicians and journalism graduates is the side that wins.
And what about those 97% of scientists who agree? Well, what they all agree on is that if their government climate funding goes away, their careers will end.
.
- LexusLover
- 01-25-2015, 04:41 AM
- LexusLover
- 01-25-2015, 04:43 AM
