I clearly remember in the 1970s and early 80s they were predicting another ice age. Stop with the gaslighting, some of us are old enough to remember the ice age predictions.
Great. Name the scientific agency that issued a policy statement on that. Like these
Was mother nature stupid enough to let you reproduce? If so, when are you gonna apologize to your progeny for **** it up for them?
If I'm ever charged with murder, I'm going to do everything I can to get you on the jury. I have never run in to anybody to whom evidence means so little. Doesn't matter if it's climate change evidence or pandemic/vaccination evidence or Presidential election evidence or cop testimony evidence.
I accept the scientific observations. I don't see any reason to accept the alarmist conclusions.
I thought you'd find it obvious after so much evidence proved how the data has been purposely skewed to fool dopes like you! But if you're basing your entire belief on AGW, the Chicago Climate Conference destroyed any possibility of AGW because of the fraudulent methods used to create it:
Your problem is your staunch belief that a "scientific consensus" somehow makes your position undeniable. It does not. Science HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH A CONSENSUS! "Consensus" is a term to be used in politics to push an agenda. Science DOESN'T REQUIRE A CONSENSUS! It requires no more than ONE scientist WHO HAPPENS TO BE RIGHT, because they have results that are VERIFIABLE BY REFERENCE TO THE REAL WORLD! "Consensus" is totally irrelevant if it cannot provide reproducible results, and the fact is that since their hypothesis has NOT been proven by the last 50 years of actual history, indeed it's been DISPROVEN, the "consensus" you claim is totally worthless!Chicago Climate Conference: AGW Global Warming Fraud Exposed
July 25, 2010: S. T. Karnick / The American Culture – July 25, 2010
https://stevenjohnhibbs.wordpress.com/2 ... d-exposed/
Last week’s meeting of 700+ scientists, policymakers, and concerned citizens in Chicago to discuss the science and economics of global warming at the Fourth International Conference on Climate Change was a huge success as measured by the intent of its sponsors: to establish once and for all that the climate realist position is increasingly the accepted conclusion among thinking people in the three categories noted above. That position is this: manmade global warming is not a crisis.Yes, all parties at the conference pretty much agreed that there was a good deal of warming in the 1980s and 1990s, and that the trend stopped and reversed in the current decade. Global temperatures have been falling in recent years, even though the weather stations and other data chosen to represent the official temperature records are in fact skewed to show higher and more-rising temperatures than are actually occurring.The predictions of a steady, horrifying increase in temperatures have proven false, which should have been a great embarrassment to the climate alarmists who made the claims and set them as the basis for their extravagant power grabs such as emissions limits and cap and trade. Yet the embarrassment has not been forthcoming from those proven to be wrong, because they are shameless.
Just one. One scientific agency that agrees with you. Anywhere on earth. Just one.Zeets2 » 04 May 2021, 10:34 am » wrote: ↑
Your problem is your staunch belief that a "scientific consensus" somehow makes your position undeniable. It does not. Science HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH A CONSENSUS! "Consensus" is a term to be used in politics to push an agenda. Science DOESN'T REQUIRE A CONSENSUS! It requires no more than ONE scientist WHO HAPPENS TO BE RIGHT, because they have results that are VERIFIABLE BY REFERENCE TO THE REAL WORLD! "Consensus" is totally irrelevant if it cannot provide reproducible results, and the fact is that since their hypothesis has NOT been proven by the last 50 years of actual history, indeed it's been DISPROVEN, the "consensus" you claim is totally worthless!
And the fact is, the greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
Mother Nature is a literary caricature that mirrors the concept of Mary having a virgin Birth of a male child. Virgin births only reproduce what the gender of the mother was and that takes being asexual per lifetime to the species.
No I am not. The guys who faked the moon landing to keep the funding going are
If you insist, since they're not as hard to find as it is to get a zealot like you to believe all the science I've already given you, so here are three:
Climate Intelligence Foundation
https://clintel.org/wp-content/uploads/ ... 202014.pdfClimate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. In particular, scientists should emphasize that their modeling output is not the result of magic: computer models are human-made. What comes out is fully dependent on what theoreticians and programmers have put in: hypotheses, assumptions, relationships, parameterizations, stability constraints, etc. Unfortunately, in mainstream climate science most of this input is undeclared.To believe the outcome of a climate model is to believe what the model makers have put in. This is precisely the problem of today’s climate discussion to which climate models are central. Climate science has degenerated into a discussion based on beliefs, not on sound self-critical science. We should free ourselves from the naïve belief in immature climate models. In future, climate research must give significantly more emphasis to empirical science.
There is no climate emergency
A global network of 900 scientists and professionals has prepared this urgent message. Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. Scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures. Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warmingThe geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as the planet has existed, with natural cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming. Warming is far slower than predictedThe world has warmed significantly less than predicted by IPCC on the basis of modeled anthropogenic forcing. The gap between the real world and the modeled world tells us that we are far from understanding climate change. Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities. There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm. We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050. If better approaches emerge, and they certainly will, we have ample time to reflect and re-adapt. The aim of global policy should be ‘prosperity for all’ by providing reliable and affordable energy at all times. In a prosperous society men and women are well educated, birthrates are low and people care about their environment. The World Climate Declaration (WCD) has brought a large variety of competent scientists together from all over the world*. The considerable knowledge and experience of this group is indispensable in reaching a balanced, dispassionate and competent view of climate change. From now onward the group is going to function as “Global Climate Intelligence Council”. The CLINTEL Council will give solicited and unsolicited advice on climate change and energy transition to governments and companies worldwide.
Or maybe you like this one better:THE DISPROOFS OF ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING (AGW) HYPOTHESIS INTRODUCTION
Natural Climate Change
Dr. Eric T. Karlstrom, Emeritus Professor of Geography, California State University, Stanislaus Global Temperatures (2500 B.C. to 2040 A.D.)Over the past twenty years, governments of the world have spent $100’s of billions on “research” ($50 to 60 billion in US alone) expressly to validate the hypothesis of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). This is in order to justify “the largest regulatory intervention in history: the restricting of carbon emissions from all human activity” (Horner, 2010). Today, however, this hypothesis has been thoroughly disproven by the scientific evidence. Most people understand one of the most basic rules of science is that when a hypothesis is disproven by the facts, that hypothesis is invalidated and must be discarded. As Thomas Huxley noted:“The great tragedy in science- the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.”Award-winning Meteorologist Brian Sussman stated:“Mankind’s burning of fossil fuels is allegedly warming the planet. This hypothesis couldn’t stand the test of an eighth grade science fair. (But) if you dare poke holes in the hypothesis you’re branded a ‘denier’. Well fine. I’d rather be called a ‘denier’ than try to push a scheme that would make Karl Marx green with envy.”Now that satellite, radiosonde balloon, and new ocean measurements all show the world has been cooling since about 1998, the dire warnings of catastrophic “global warming” have been changed to dire warnings about catastrophic “climate change” or “climate disruption.” That the normal processes of science are not being followed, indeed, have been turned upside down, is a strong indication that this hypothesis serves some very important political/economic agendas.
And with that, I'm done catering to your ignorance, as I've got more important things to do. You'll never admit to your rudimentary knowledge of the facts, so there's little point to continue any further. I learned long ago not to try to put lipstick on a pig. It wastes your time, and annoys the pig.https://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=8
Friends of Science PROVIDING INSIGHT INTO CLIMATE CHANGE
To educate the public about climate science and through them bring pressure to bear on governments to engage in public debates on the scientific merits of the hypothesis of human induced global warming and the various policies that intend to address the issue. Friends of Science is a non-profit organization run by dedicated volunteers comprised mainly of active and retired earth and atmospheric scientists, engineers, and other professionals. We have assembled a Scientific Advisory Board of esteemed climate scientists from around the world to offer a critical mass of current science on global climate and climate change to policy makers, as well as any other interested parties. We also do extensive literature research on these scientific subjects. Concerned about the abuse of science displayed in the politically inspired Kyoto protocol, we offer critical evidence that challenges the premises of Kyoto and present alternative causes of climate change.
Our major environmental concern is the significant shift in recent years away from the important emphasis of previous decades on continual reductions in air and water pollution, to focus almost exclusively on global warming. The current obsession with global warming is misguided in that climate fluctuations are natural phenomena and we suggest that adaptation should be emphasized rather than misguided attempts at control. Consensus on Climate Change?
There has never been a survey of all scientists, not even all climate scientists. “Catastrophic Anthropogenic (Human-caused) Global Warming” (CAGW) is a theoretical threat, mostly used by environmental groups to raise money.
I said a scientific agency. Not a PR group. LolZeets2 » 04 May 2021, 1:15 pm » wrote: ↑
Or maybe you like this one better:
And with that, I'm done catering to your ignorance, as I've got more important things to do. You'll never admit to your rudimentary knowledge of the facts, so there's little point to continue any further. I learned long ago not to try to put lipstick on a pig. It wastes your time, and annoys the pig.
You've been crushed, nitwit! The Climate Intelligence Foundation is a global network composed of 900 scientists and professionals and IS NOT A PR GROUP!Vegasgiants » 04 May 2021, 1:18 pm » wrote: ↑
Berkhout founded the Netherlands-based organization Climate Intelligence Foundation (CLINTEL). Mid 2019 plans of CLINTEL and Berkhout were leaked showing that they were organizing a campaign against political commitments to net zero carbon emissions being made into law. The campaign features a number of academics and industry figures with ties to climate change denial groups, as well as members from oil and gas companies. Berkhout claimed the ideal of the organization was to provide an alternative to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.In late September 2019 the group produced an open letter which stated that there was no climate emergency and repeated a number of claims that were inconsistent with the scientific evidence on climate. A fact check performed by climate scientists for Climate Feedback gave the letter an overall scientific credibility of "very low", and tagged it as "Biased, Cherry-picking, Inaccurate, Misleading". The analysis also added that, out of the roughly 500 signatories, only 10 self-identified as climate scientists.
Now run along.
Morons piss me off
Users browsing this forum: Alexa [Bot], Annoyed Liberall, Arris, Benson13, Bidennextpresident, Blutarski, Buffalo, Cannonpointer, ConsRule, Crazytrain, crimsongulf, DawnDavenport, Famagusta, FOS, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], Google Feedfetcher, Hank, Ike Bana, Jantje_Smit, nefarious101, neue regel, PaperLi [Bot], Pinterest [Bot], Polar1ty, PoliticalPopUp, Semrush [Bot], SJConspirator, solon, sooted up Cyndi, Steve Jobs [Bot], Taipan, Twitter [Bot], user1620678236, Vegas, Vegas giants, Yahoo [Bot], Zeets2 and 571 guests